hb_api_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, yet it discloses nothing about ordering (newest first?), retention window, scope (per endpoint, per session, global), or that it is a safe read-only listing. Only the 'previous' qualifier hints at recency.

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 four-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb and with zero filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves the definition thin rather than structurally rich.

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-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is the minimum viable description. An agent still lacks return-shape, ordering, and scoping information that cannot be recovered from the schema.

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 single 'limit' parameter is already fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning such as default behavior when results exceed the limit.

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 clear verb+resource ('List previous probe results') that an agent can distinguish from the sibling hb_api_probe, which presumably executes probes rather than retrieving history. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling the way a 5-rated definition would.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. that results come from hb_api_probe runs), and no alternatives named. The connection to probing is only inferable from the shared 'api' prefix.

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