get_optimization_history

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions retrieving history and provides parameter meanings, but does not discuss ordering, permissions, side effects, or return structure. This is insufficient for a tool with no safety 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 sentence followed by a compact argument list, with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and each parameter line is concise and directly relevant.

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 output schema, the description does not explain what fields the returned history contains, nor any ordering or default behavior beyond the parameter defaults. While the core purpose is clear, the lack of return-value details and edge-case information leaves moderate gaps.

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?

The input schema provides only types and defaults, so the description adds valuable meaning by explaining target_month as a filter in YYYY-MM format, skip as a skip count, and limit as a maximum result count. This compensates for the schema's 0% description 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 clearly states 'アサイン最適化の実行履歴を取得する' (get execution history of assignment optimization), specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_optimization_result by focusing on history, although it does not explicitly compare itself to alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the usage context.

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