get_workflow_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that run_id is optional and defaults to the latest run, and that max_events defaults to 100 with a maximum of 1000. However, it does not mention output ordering, error behavior, or potential cost/rate concerns. The information provided is useful but incomplete.

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 opens with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a compact Args block that gives each parameter purpose and constraints. There is no filler or repetition; every detail 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be detailed. The description explains all parameters and their behaviors, which is sufficient for a simple read-only history tool. Minor gaps such as ordering or error handling prevent a perfect score, but overall the definition is complete enough 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 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: workflow_id is the required identifier, run_id is optional and falls back to latest run, and max_events has both a default and maximum. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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 function: 'Get the event history for a workflow execution.' The verb 'get' and the resource 'event history' are specific. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like list_workflows or describe_workflow, the resource is distinct enough that an agent can infer the difference.

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 about when to choose this tool over its siblings. The description explains parameter behavior (e.g., run_id defaults to latest) but does not mention alternatives or conditions for use. The agent is left to infer that get_workflow_history is for execution events rather than listing or describing workflows.

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