get_shot_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state 'metadata only', which clarifies the return type, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated, ordered, or limited, or any authentication needs. This is only a partial disclosure.

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 action and resource, followed by a concise list of output fields. Every word adds value, with no redundant filler.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple listing, but it lacks details on scope (all history vs. a subset), ordering, pagination, or the full return structure. Since there is no output schema, the field list helps but isn't fully complete.

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 input schema has no properties, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description naturally does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't mention any.

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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving a listing of past espresso shots, specifying 'metadata only' and the exact fields shown (name, time, profile, rating). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_current_shot, get_last_shot, and get_shot_statistics, which serve different purposes.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of related siblings such as search_history or get_shot_statistics. There is no mention of contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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