trust__history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden. It implies a read-only operation by stating it returns data, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, destructive actions, or prerequisites. For a history tool, this is minimally adequate, but lacks depth.

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 sentence) and front-loaded with a tag summarizing the tool's domain. It is not verbose, but could be slightly more structured to separate the tag from the main purpose.

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 description lists what is returned, but no output schema exists. It lacks details on the format of the history (e.g., structure of outcomes, pagination, limits). For a tool that returns multiple pieces of data, more specificity 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 input schema has one parameter (agent_id) with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not mention the parameter, its type, or its role beyond 'for an agent.' This adds almost no value over the raw schema.

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 that the tool returns 'Full outcome history + attestation count + current score for an agent,' specifying the resource and data returned. It distinguishes from siblings like trust__score_agent (which only returns score) and trust__attest (which deals with attestations). However, it could be more explicit about the action (e.g., 'Get' or 'Retrieve').

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., trust__score_agent for just the score, trust__record_outcome for recording outcomes). An agent would need to infer use cases from the description.

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