get_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by specifying 'from local tracking' and describing the output components, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires prior tracking to have occurred, or if there are any limitations such as omitting submissions not yet local. The verb 'Get' implies safety but this is not fully expanded.

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, using two sentences without redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds valuable information about output format. Every sentence earns its place.

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 covers the tool's output and data source, which is sufficient for a simple read operation. However, it lacks any comparison with sibling tools or clarification of how 'local tracking' relates to other submission tools, and it does not mention parameter options (though schema covers these). Overall, it is fairly complete but with some gaps around usage context.

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 100% coverage for both parameters (days and app_name) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves submission history from local tracking, with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'submission history'. It also enumerates what the output includes (summary stats, per-app breakdowns, recent submissions), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_stats or get_report.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any contrasting use cases for sibling tools such as get_stats or get_report, and the phrase 'local tracking' only weakly implies a specific context without stating exclusions or alternatives.

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