get_worker_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the result limit (last 10) and the exact fields returned, which is valuable for a read operation. It doesn't mention error behavior or prerequisites, but for a simple get tool this is sufficient.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and object, making it immediately understandable.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential return fields and the limit, making it complete for this simple tool. No other context is needed.

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 only parameter, worker_id, is a simple integer and its meaning is self-evident. The description's phrase 'for a worker' reinforces the parameter's purpose. No additional description is needed for this trivial parameter.

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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('last 10 run history entries for a worker'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_chain_history by explicitly targeting worker 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 context is clear: this tool is for retrieving a worker's run history. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools list makes its scope obvious. The 'last 10' limitation further clarifies usage.

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