get_history

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, but the description adds a useful behavioral detail: 'Credentials are already blanked.' It also specifies ordering and returned fields, though the output schema covers those. It does not mention pagination limits or retention beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Two tightly written sentences. The first front-loads what the tool returns and its ordering; the second states the use case. No redundant or vague filler.

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 rich input schema, output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers purpose, usage, ordering, and credential handling. A minor gap is the lack of differentiation from get_history_entry, but the core information needed to call the tool 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 100%, so the schema fully documents all six optional parameters. The description adds no parameter syntax or usage beyond what the schema already provides, fitting the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool returns recent requests from shared history, with ordering (newest first) and the fields returned (who, method, URL, status, time). This is a clear verb+resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_history_entry, which likely returns a single history entry.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: 'Use it to see what the user tried, or to check what was sent earlier.' However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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