get_node_timeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what is returned (timestamped attempts, exit codes, error logs, duration in milliseconds) and implies a read-only operation via 'Get'. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a read-only retrieval tool this is sufficient. It adds value by detailing the contents beyond the tool name.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the included data elements. There is zero waste, and every phrase contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the expected output (timeline contents). It does not mention any limitations or edge cases (e.g., behavior if node not found), but the tool is simple enough that this is not a critical gap. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter, nodeId, described as 'ID of the node'. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'chronological execution timeline for a node' and lists the exact contents (attempts, exit codes, error logs, duration). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_graph_state or get_phase_status, which target different scopes (graph-level vs node-level).

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 implies usage context: when you need detailed node-level execution history with timing and error logs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the specificity of 'for a node' provides clear guidance relative to the sibling tools like get_phase_status. A 4 is appropriate because the context is clear, though no explicit when-not-to-use is given.

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