extract_node_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only notes that results are 'tested on the 4.13 profile' and that states are 1-based. It does not state read/write nature, permission needs, failure modes, or return shape for a 5-required-parameter extraction tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the useful index-base and profile-compatibility facts come first. It is compact, though perhaps too terse given the documentation gaps elsewhere.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and five undocumented required parameters, the description is significantly incomplete for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. The profile note and 1-based hint are a start but nowhere near sufficient.

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 document all five parameters. It only illuminates 'states' (explicit 1-based) and hints at node_ids ('true user node IDs'), while d3plot, quantity, and units remain undefined in both schema and description.

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 gives a verb ('Export') and a resource ('native vectors') scoped to node IDs and states, which hints at nodal time-history extraction. However, 'native vectors' is unexplained jargon, and it never clarifies how this differs from close siblings like extract_nodal_results or extract_d3plot_nodal, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling extraction tools (extract_nodal_results, extract_d3plot_nodal, extract_binout_curve). No prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria are stated, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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