get_edge_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming no destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the temporal and historical nature of the data, including edge type and confidence changes, without contradicting the 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 two-sentence paragraph with no extraneous text. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and details, and the second sentence specifies parameter requirements. Every sentence is necessary and efficient.

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 presence of an output schema (covering return values), annotations, and fully described parameters, the description is complete. It covers the tool's core purpose, the required parameters, and the kind of data returned without missing critical details.

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 100% with both parameters having clear descriptions ('UUID of the first item'/'second item'). The description repeats this requirement ('Pass item_a and item_b as UUIDs') but does not add additional meaning 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 description clearly specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'temporal history of knowledge edges between two specific items,' listing specific aspects like when connected, edge types over time, and confidence changes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_knowledge_graph' or 'find_path' by focusing on a specific pair's historical edge data.

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 states the tool's function explicitly but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons.

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