get_assignment_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Inspect', which implies read-only behavior, but it does not describe the return format, whether results are paginated, or whether the conditional Headquarters build affects the output. This is thin coverage for a tool with no structured behavioral metadata.

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 sentence with no redundant filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The conditional clause is slightly awkward but not wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation context, so the description must explain what the agent should expect. It does not mention the shape of the history, whether profile is needed to access certain histories, or what conditions might make the history unavailable. An agent could call the tool but would be uncertain about the response and edge cases.

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%, so the description must compensate. It fails to explain the purpose of the 'profile' parameter and does not explicitly state that assignment_id identifies the assignment whose history is inspected. The property names are self-explanatory to a degree, but the description adds little beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Inspect' combined with the resource 'assignment history/changes' clearly states what the tool does. It is distinct from the sibling get_assignment, which presumably returns current assignment state, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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?

The phrase 'where the active Headquarters build exposes assignment history' provides a limited availability condition, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over similar siblings like get_assignment or get_interview_history. No alternatives or exclusions are described.

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