get_object_history

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose significant behavior: 'full history' and 'oldest to newest' (ordering). However, it omits any mention of read-only semantics, pagination, rate limits, or return format, which are common behavioral disclosures for history tools. The provided ordering is useful, but the lack of other context keeps it at a mid-range score.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that succinctly communicates the tool's core functionality and ordering. There is no wasteful text, and the structure is clear and readable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is somewhat thin. It conveys purpose and ordering but does not describe the response shape, any limitations, or prerequisites. For a 3-parameter tool, this is acceptable but leaves gaps that could confuse an agent expecting more operational detail.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 67%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented 'endpoint' parameter. The phrase 'specific Graph object type' loosely references object_name, but adds no real meaning beyond the schema's examples. The 'since' parameter is not mentioned, so the description adds little value to parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves 'full change history for a specific Graph object type, oldest to newest', which is a specific verb+resource. It also includes a user-oriented question ('what has happened to X over time?') and distinguishes from siblings like get_recent_changes by emphasizing 'full' and chronological order.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need a complete historical timeline of a Graph object. It implies a contrast with recent-changes tools, but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.