get_status_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the only transparency signal. It clearly indicates a read operation via 'Get', which is safe to infer. However, it doesn't disclose ordering, structure, or whether it includes all status changes, which would be useful. Still adequate for a simple getter.

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?

A single sentence of seven words, directly front-loaded with the core action and resource. Zero wasted words.

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?

For a low-complexity read tool with one fully documented parameter, the description adequately conveys what the tool does. It doesn't specify return value details, but no output schema exists; still, 'status transition history' implies a list of transitions, which is sufficient for simple use.

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 schema already documents taskId at 100% coverage. The description doesn't add additional parameter semantics beyond reinforcing that it's for a task, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and a specific resource 'status transition history' scoped to a task. It is clear and distinct from most siblings, though 'get_task_history' overlaps, so it doesn't explicitly differentiate.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus 'get_task_history' or how it relates to 'record_status_transition'. There are no when-to-use or exclusion criteria.

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