Read History Task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the search behavior (in history/ directory, date shard optimization) but doesn't disclose return format, error handling, or whether it's read-only. It's a read operation by implication, but not explicitly stated. There's no contradiction, but it's sparse.

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?

Two short paragraphs with key information front-loaded. No fluff. The example format for task_id is helpful. It's concise and well-structured.

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 has an output schemahandled, the main gaps are lack of when-to-use guidance and minimal behavioral transparency (since no annotations). The description is sufficient for basic invocation but lacks depth for an AI agent to be fully confident about side effects and edge cases.

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. The description adds the meaning of date as a restriction for speed, which is useful, and mentions task_id can be a full filename, which is beyond the schema. However, it's not extensive.

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 it reads a task from the deep history archive by task_id, which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like read_task (which likely reads current tasks). It could be more explicit, but the verb-resource pair is clear.

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 archived tasks and mentions that providing date restricts the search to a date shard for speed, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with read_task or other alternatives. No exclusions are given.

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