get_test_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying that the tool returns only summary history and deliberately excludes result_detail and error_record. This clarifies data granularity and limitations beyond the annotation.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and key exclusions. Every word adds value, and it avoids unnecessary detail.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema and read-only annotation, the description covers the essential selection criteria and data scope. It could mention the behavior of the limit parameter, but overall it is sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It only implies test_id via 'test/control' but completely omits limit, leaving its meaning and default behavior unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb 'Show' and resource 'summary history' for a test/control, clearly stating the tool's function. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting it does not return raw evidence, result_detail, or error_record, which sets it apart from get_result_detail.

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 description implies when to use the tool (for summary history) and warns that it is not for raw evidence, providing context for selection. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like get_result_detail for raw evidence, so it falls short of full guideline clarity.

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