get_query_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral details like the default limit of 50, the versioned profileName null semantics, and aggregation via groupBy. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or whether this is strictly read-only.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then filters, then version-specific additions. It wastes no words, though cramming eight parameters into one line makes it slightly dense.

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 eight parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits output shape, parameter formats, and any guidance relative to sibling tools, leaving agents to guess at critical details for correct invocation.

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 only 25% (2 of 8 parameters have descriptions), so the description must compensate. It lists all parameter names and provides the limit default, but db, kind, since, until, and onlyErrors are left semantically vague—no formats, allowed values, or defaults beyond the list.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Get recent query history.' This distinguishes it from execution, explanation, and linting siblings, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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?

Usage is implied through the verb 'Get' and the listed filters, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like audit_log or get_metrics, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.

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