Safety record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It implies a read operation ('history') but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor does it mention auth requirements, rate limits, or other side effects. This leaves agents uncertain about safety.

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, compact sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the main purpose, though minor additional detail could be added without harming conciseness.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return content adequately. However, it is incomplete regarding parameter behavior and usage context, leaving gaps for an agent to infer correctly.

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 single parameter 'jobId' lacks schema descriptions (0% coverage) and the tool description adds no explanation of its meaning, format, or impact. The phrase 'across all jobs' hints at filtering but is insufficient for correct usage.

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 tool as 'FLHA history' and lists its contents (open assessments, signed records, incident flags), distinguishing it from siblings like flha_open and flha_signoff. However, it does not mention the optional jobId parameter for filtering, slightly reducing clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for viewing history, but does not specify contexts or exclusions. Sibling tools suggest related actions, but no explicit direction is given.

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