get_history

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It declares 'Read-only' indicating no mutations, and describes the returned data (actions, units, targets, turn number). Could add more details like data freshness or pagination limits, but sufficient for a read-only 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?

Three sentences efficiently convey purpose, usage, and param detail. No fluff, but could be slightly better structured with line breaks for readability.

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?

With 2 params and no output schema, description covers purpose, usage guidelines, param details, and sibling differentiation. Lacks explicit return format, but context is adequate for agent to use the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description compensates partially. Explains 'last_n' with default and max values, but does not describe 'connection_id'. Adds value for one parameter but lacks full coverage.

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 the verb 'return', the resource 'most recent game actions', and includes specific action types (moves, attacks, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_match_telemetry' by focusing on recent turn-by-turn actions.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use this at turn start to understand what the opponent did last turn' and 'For aggregate match statistics use get_match_telemetry instead.' Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use with a named alternative.

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