getIssueHistory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the timeline is interpreted and aggregates time per status, which goes beyond the schema and annotations.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the alternative is given only after the main behavior is established.

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 single simple parameter, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description is complete. It provides the use case, content of the result, and the sibling alternative, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, but the description compensates by clarifying that the tool operates on one issuecars. The single parameter issueId is an integer and the description's repeated 'one issue' makes its role clear enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 clearly states it builds an interpreted change-history timeline for a single issue, listing the contents (field changes, notes, time aggregated per status). It also distinguishes itself from getIssue, which returns the full issue context and journals.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('for history or status-duration analysis') and names the alternative (getIssue) with what that alternative provides instead. This removes ambiguity about tool selection.

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