get_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a non-destructive read operation, but the description doesn't explicitly state that it has no side effects or limitations. It adds minimal context beyond the tool's name.

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 redundant information. It is concise and efficient, earning a high score for structure.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, a minimal description is somewhat acceptable. However, it lacks context about the relationship to other history-related tools (e.g., delete_history_items) and doesn't mention optional parameter behavior beyond the schema. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema provides full description coverage for both parameters (max_items, prompt_id), so the description itself adds no additional parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema already documents parameters clearly.

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 'Get ComfyUI execution history' uses a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_queue and get_job_status. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself or elaborate on what 'history' encompasses, so it's slightly below a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_queue or get_job_status. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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