get_history_for_case

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' makes clear this is a read operation, but the description does not disclose whether the history is ordered, paginated (though limit/offset are in the schema), or what types of changes are included. It is minimally adequate but lacks richer behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to identifying the operation. This is an ideal level of conciseness for such a simple retrieval tool.

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 three-parameter tool, the description plus a fully documented schema is minimally viable. However, there is no output schema and the description does not describe the shape or content of the returned history, nor does it provide guidance relative to sibling tools. An agent could invoke it correctly, but it might not fully anticipate what the response contains.

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 all three parameters (case_id, limit, offset) are already documented with descriptions. The tool description adds no semantic information beyond the schema, which matches the baseline score of 3. The schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('change history'), and the target object ('a case'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_case or get_results_for_case, which return current case data or test results rather than case change history. No ambiguity remains about which tool to use for this purpose.

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 the use case: call this tool when you need the change history of a particular case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, nor does it point to alternatives such as get_case for current case details or get_results_for_case for test results. The usage context is understandable but left mostly to inference.

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