get_test_history

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the tool reads history and shows pass/fail, branches, and errors, but does not mention data freshness, rate limits, or what constitutes 'recent runs'. Could be more informative about output ordering or default limit.

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: first states purpose, second adds output details. No wasted words, front-loaded with core purpose. Efficient and clear.

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?

Given no output schema, description covers output fields (pass/fail, branches, errors). Could improve by noting ordering (chronological) and that limit defaults to 10, but overall sufficient for a history tool with moderate complexity.

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 the schema already documents all 4 parameters. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., does not mention that limit defaults to 10). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves failure history for a specific test across recent runs, listing pass/fail status, branches, and error messages. This differentiates it from siblings like get_failed_tests (list of failing tests) or get_flaky_tests (flaky tests) by focusing on one test's history.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_test_runs or get_job_tests. It implies usage when needing historical data for a single test, but lacks guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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