lucille_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool shows scores, messages, and Lucille's responses, and can filter by round or player. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, mention auth requirements, or describe any side effects.

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 that efficiently conveys the core functionality. It is front-loaded with the main action. Slight room for improvement by splitting into two sentences for clarity.

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?

The tool has few parameters (3 optional) and no output schema. The description adequately lists what is shown (scores, messages, Lucille's responses) and the filtering capabilities. It is sufficiently complete for a simple, read-like tool.

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 clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema (e.g., clarifying round corresponds to personality). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'See' and resource 'game attempts', clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like lucille_leaderboard or lucille_play by focusing on historical attempts with filtering options.

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 usage for viewing recent game attempts with filters, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., lucille_my_stats or lucille_round_strategy). No when-not-to-use or exclusionary criteria are provided.

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