kernel_agents_history

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no statement that this is a read-only operation, no ordering or pagination behavior, no indication of what a 'run' record contains, and no permission or retention caveats. The limit/status params hint at paging and filtering, but the description never confirms it.

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 six-word sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than optimal density.

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 tool is low-complexity (3 params, all schema-documented, flat object), so the minimal description is not catastrophic. But with no annotations and no output schema, the agent still lacks any statement about return contents, ordering, or read-only safety, leaving real gaps for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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%, so agent_id, limit (default 20, max 200), and status (with enumerated values) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which matches the baseline 3 when structured fields do the work.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource: 'List past runs for an agent', with the scope (per-agent) stated explicitly. It does not, however, differentiate this from siblings such as kernel_agents_subject_history or kernel_chat_history, which also return historical data, so an agent cannot route on the description alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. The phrase 'past runs' weakly implies the retrieval use case, but nothing tells an agent whether to prefer this over kernel_agents_subject_history or kernel_chat_history for historical lookups.

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