trust__history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool returns but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, performance implications, or whether results are paginated. With zero annotations, this is insufficient.

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 concise (one line) and front-loads the domain with brackets, but it lacks structure (e.g., listing what is returned explicitly). While not verbose, it could be more organized without adding length.

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 tool's complexity (multiple data types: history, count, score) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain format, ordering, pagination, or how to interpret the results, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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%, yet the description adds no meaning beyond the schema for the single parameter agent_id. It does not explain scope, format, or acceptable values, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use the parameter 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 the tool provides 'Full outcome history + attestation count + current score for an agent,' using specific terms that distinguish it from siblings like trust__score_agent (score only) and trust__attest (record attestation).

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 usage for retrieving history and scores but does not explicitly state when to use this over other trust tools like trust__score_agent or trust__verify_attestation. No when-not or alternatives are provided.

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