rx_ticket_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations by specifying chronological order (old to new) and the default of the last 30 events, though it does not describe the response shape or pagination behavior in detail.

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 paragraph: purpose first, then ordering/defaults, then usage examples, then parameter source and sibling routing. It is mostly efficient, with minor repetition of schema and annotation content such as the numeric Id rule and ‘Только чтение’.

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 simple read-only two-parameter history tool, the description covers what events are returned, their ordering, the default limit, the required Id source, and which sibling to use for card details/comments. Because there is no output schema, it could say more about the exact response format, but an agent has enough context to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters, including the numeric Id requirement and the limit default/max. The description repeats the numeric Id requirement and the default limit but adds little parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific resource and action: the history of an agile-board card, enumerating the event types it covers (creation, column moves, status/deadline/plan/fact/assignee/tag/title/description changes). It also distinguishes itself from rx_ticket by saying that the card itself and comments belong to that sibling.

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?

It gives explicit example questions that this tool answers (‘when was the card closed’, ‘who moved it’, ‘how long was it in progress’, ‘when was the deadline changed’) and routes card/comment lookups to rx_ticket. It also states that the numeric card Id must come from rx_tickets or rx_board.

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