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 discloses the search location (history/) and the efficiency benefit of the date parameter. However, it does not explicitly state the tool is read-only, nor does it mention potential behaviors like error handling or rate limits. The action 'Read' implies non-destructive, but lacks explicit safety confirmation.

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 three sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the search mechanism, and the third provides optimization guidance. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, return value explanation is unnecessary. The tool is simple with 2 parameters (1 required). The description covers core functionality, search location, and optimization hint, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the effect of the date parameter ('restricts search to that date shard') and its performance benefit ('much faster'), which goes beyond the schema's simple description.

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 'Read a task from the deep history archive.' It specifies the verb 'Read' and the resource 'deep history archive', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'read_task' which likely read current tasks.

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 provides guidance on when to use the optional date parameter for efficiency ('much faster'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_task' or 'list_history', missing explicit when-not or alternative suggestions.

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