get_recurring_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by describing the shape of each returned entry (what was accomplished, issues found, artifacts produced), which matters since there is no output schema. It omits ordering guarantees and behavior when no prior instances exist.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence earns its place by describing entry contents. The closing clause about giving context for the current instance is somewhat repetitive of the opening framing.

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 read-only two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose and return content adequately. However, with no output schema present, it should say more about result ordering, empty-history behavior, or volume, which an agent consuming history would want to know.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the limit default and the source of the schedule UUID. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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 specific verb and resource — returns instance history for a recurring task schedule — and the second sentence spells out what each entry contains (accomplishments, issues, artifacts). That clearly separates it from list_recurring_schedules (which enumerates schedules) or get_task, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 phrase 'gives context for the current instance of a recurring task' implies when to call it, but the guidance is only implied. There is no explicit 'use this before doing X' or 'for the current instance use get_task_context instead' routing against the many neighboring context tools.

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