get_interview_history

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies the scope and content of the returned records and notes that results come from the 'active Headquarters build,' which is moderately informative. It does not describe output format, pagination, ordering, or permissions, but for a read-only history lookup the stated content coverage is a reasonable baseline.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then adds concrete detail about the record types included. There is no filler or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema and complete parameter documentation coverage, the description should clarify the role of profile and give some indication of the response shape or limits. It lists the kinds of history records included but omits the profile parameter and does not describe the return structure, leaving an agent without enough information to confidently invoke the tool with all parameters.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for the missing parameter docs. It indirectly clarifies that interview_id identifies the target interview ('for one interview'), but it entirely fails to explain the optional profile parameter, leaving a significant semantic gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('audit/history records for one interview'), and it enumerates the record types included: status changes, answers, comments, and assignment actions. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_assignment_history and get_interview_details.

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 description implies the tool is for retrieving audit/history data for a single interview, which provides some usage context. However, it does not state when to prefer this over related tools such as get_assignment_history or get_interview_details, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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