request_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does well: it characterizes the tool as read-only ('Reads the server's own history API'), clarifies auth needs ('needs no account'), and scopes it to localhost. It does not go into edge-case behavior such as id-without-service or whether listing mutates state, but the explicit read framing largely covers the safety profile.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose: what the tool returns, when to use it, how to get detail, its auth/localhost behavior, and when to pick a sibling. The main result is front-loaded and there is no 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?

For a tool with 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description does enough: it names the returned fields, explains the id/service detail mode, gives the local/no-account context, and routes to diagnose_requests. It does not specify how filters interact with id or describe pagination beyond 'newest first', but the sibling routing and core usage guidance cover the main agent needs.

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 86%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds context for the id+service pair and explains what the returned history contains, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline 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 names a specific verb and resource ('List the requests the running local server has answered'), states the result ordering, and enumerates the returned fields. It also distinguishes itself from sibling diagnose_requests by explicitly saying that tool is for asking what is WRONG with traffic.

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 concrete use cases: show what the user's code sent, confirm a call arrived, and find the request to look at next. It also provides an explicit exclusion by directing agents to diagnose_requests when they want problem analysis rather than a listing.

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