traffic_light_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Last N records' hints at a bounded read, but nothing states read-only safety, whether the call has side effects, ordering of results, or failure behavior for an empty history.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and the counting qualifier in parentheses. Efficient, though the parenthetical merely echoes the parameter name.

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 one-optional-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers the basic what-and-how-many, but omits ordering, time window, and empty-history behavior, leaving an agent to infer the return shape entirely.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default of 20. The description only restates 'last N records' without adding format, range, or ordering semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete resource (crossing history / 'история шагов через дорогу') and scope (last N records), which is enough to tell it apart from the sibling check_traffic_light, which reads current state rather than history. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no when-to-use guidance and never mentions the alternative (check_traffic_light) or when history is preferable to a live check. Retrieval of 'last N' implies a read-oriented usage but nothing is stated.

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