get_plant_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the read-only nature via 'Retrieve' and enumerates the categories of data returned. However, it omits details like ordering, pagination behavior, or how the history entries are structured, which are relevant but not critical for a read tool.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and it efficiently lists the key content types without redundant words. Every part earns its place.

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: one required parameter, one optional parameter documented in the schema, and no output schema. The description clearly scopes what data is returned. While no ordering or response format is given, the scope and parameters are fully covered for a read-only history tool.

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 schema description coverage is 100% with both plant_id and limit clearly documented. The tool description does not need to add parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb, 'Retrieve,' and identifies a clear resource: historical log events, care notes, watering records, and observations for a plant. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_plant_details (current details) and add_plant_log (adding logs), even without naming them.

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 usage context: use this when you need a plant's historical data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like get_plant_details for current info, leaving some selection ambiguity for an agent.

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