cos_task_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying that the history is actor-attributed and includes git commits, which informs the agent about the scope and nature of the returned data. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and enumerates content types. It is concise and every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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 three parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description should explain parameter meanings and default behaviors. It only hints at include_commits and does not address limit or the required task_id; the word 'full' may even mislead given the limit parameter. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (task_id, limit, include_commits). The mention of 'git commits' hints at include_commits, but there is no elaboration on the limiting behavior of limit or the requirement of task_id. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 identifies the resource as task history and enumerates specific content types (creation, status transitions, field edits, git commits), which distinguishes it from siblings like cos_task_show or cos_task_daily. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'get' or 'list', making it a noun-phrase statement rather than a full action definition.

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 alternatives. The description only states what the history includes, without mentioning that this is the audit-trail tool or that cos_task_show would be appropriate for current state, so the agent receives no usage context.

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