sentinel_get_call_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries more burden, yet it only mentions read-style behavior (get, return) with no additional behavioral context such as whether it returns only the current agent's calls, whether responses are ordered, default limits, or any scoping restrictions. The word 'get' implies read-only but there's no explicit confirmation of non-mutating behavior or auth requirements.

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, efficient sentence with no waste. 'Get recent tool call history through the gateway, with status and timing information' is concise and front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, and there are many data-retrieval siblings, so more completeness is expected. The description covers basic purpose and return content (status, timing) but lacks guidance on ordering, message formats, error behavior, or how it differs from ledger/history retrieval tools. It's minimally adequate but not rich.

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 both parameters (limit as number of records, agentId as filtering). The description adds little beyond 'status and timing information' for return content, which complements the parameters but doesn't deepen understanding of limit semantics (e.g., maximum allowed) or agentId format.

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 'get' with resource 'tool call history' and adds scoping ('through the gateway') plus 'status and timing information' as return details. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like sentinel_query_ledger (ledger) and sentinel_get_dashboard_stats (stats). Loses a point for not contrasting against the broader audit/ledger tools which overlap in purpose.

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 it's for retrieving call history but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions versus alternatives like sentinel_query_ledger or sentinel_get_dashboard_stats, which could overlap for audit purposes. There's no mention of pagination or typical usage scenarios. No exclusions are stated, which is a gap given multiple similar data-retrieval siblings.

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