Get task history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers useful traits: newest-first ordering, content exclusions, and the limited scope to recorded workflow changes. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, auth requirements, or pagination behavior, but the 'get' verb and 'recorded changes' phrasing imply a non-mutating history lookup.

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 conveys the tool's core purpose, scope, ordering, and an important distinction from comments. There is no wasted wording.

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 description sufficiently conveys what a call returns (status, assignee, due-date changes, newest first) even without an output schema. It does not explain cursor/limit semantics or pagination flow, but for a simple task-history tool the core information an agent needs is present.

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 only 33%: only the 'key' parameter is described, while 'limit' and 'cursor' have no schema descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so it does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('get'), resource ('a task's recorded workflow changes'), and the fields involved (status, assignee, due date), plus ordering ('newest first'). It also distinguishes itself from comment retrieval with 'Carries no message content,' so an agent can separate it from siblings like get-comments.

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 clearly implies when to use it (when a task's workflow history is needed) and includes an exclusion ('Carries no message content'), steering agents away from using it for message content. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions, leaving some inference to the agent.

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