get_action_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond that: it enumerates the event types recorded (snapshot imports, configuration changes, prepared proposals, completed demo actions), clarifies the semantic nuance of action_prepared events (preparation vs. execution), and notes that the tool works before a snapshot is loaded. This goes well beyond the annotations and meaningfully informs the agent about behavior and scope.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then delivers the return format, event types, a nuance, and timing in a compact series of sentences. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler. It is efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description fills in all remaining gaps an agent needs: return field names, ordering, event semantics, and availability before snapshot load. Nothing essential is missing 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?

The schema covers the sole parameter 'limit' fully, describing its range (1–500), default (50), and ordering behavior. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 opens with 'Read recent audit records from this data directory without changing state,' a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like prepare_action or execute_demo_action. It also specifies the return fields (id, at, event, detail) and ordering, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

While no alternative tool is named, the description provides clear context for when to use it: it works before a snapshot is loaded, and it explicitly separates calculation evidence from audit history ('Calculation evidence is separate from this audit history'), implying a when-not scenario. This gives an agent enough guidance to route correctly, though it stops short of naming a specific sibling.

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