get_history_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return type ('List of history sessions with metadata') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'history sessions' entail (e.g., time range, sorting). This leaves gaps for safe and effective use.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for args and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description compensates well for parameters but lacks behavioral context. The output schema likely covers return values, so completeness is adequate but could be improved with more usage or behavioral details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for both parameters: 'include_folders: Whether to include folder entries (years/months)' and 'limit: Maximum number of sessions to return.' This clarifies their purposes beyond the schema's titles, though it could provide more context on default values or constraints.

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's purpose: 'Get DJ history sessions from rekordbox.' It specifies the resource (history sessions) and source (rekordbox), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_recent_sessions' or 'search_history_sessions', which would require more specific scope or method details.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_recent_sessions' and 'search_history_sessions', the description lacks context on differences in scope, filtering, or use cases, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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