get_chore_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It states the tool returns completion records with specific fields, which is basic. However, it omits details about error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens for invalid chore IDs. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences long with no unnecessary words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second sentence adds value by listing return fields and usage context. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values, which it does (records include time, person, notes, points). However, it does not mention result ordering, pagination, or limits. For a history tool with 18 siblings, additional context (e.g., 'returns newest first') would improve completeness.

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, 'chore_id', is already well-described in the schema ('The ID of the chore to fetch history for'). With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional meaning beyond emphasizing 'specific chore', which is marginal. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Get completion history for a specific chore') and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'get_all_chores_history' by specifying 'specific chore'. It lists key return fields (when completed, by whom, notes, points), providing strong purpose clarity.

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 notes the tool is 'useful for tracking chore completion patterns and accountability,' which implies usage context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'get_chore' or 'get_chore_details'). No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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