get_activation_history

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the tool name and offers no additional context about what 'activation history' includes, how the response is structured, or any other behavioral traits. This is effectively a tautology that provides no behavioral insight.

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 concise at one sentence, but it is essentially a rephrasing of the tool name and offers no added structure or value. While not wordy, it borders on under-specification rather than effective brevity.

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 tool has no output schema and no behavioral details. The description does not clarify what 'activation history' means, what data is returned, or how it differs from get_active_activations. This leaves the tool feeling incomplete for a user needing context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly avoids superfluous parameter details.

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 the action 'get' and the resource 'activation history', which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_active_activations, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_active_activations or get_status. There is no context about scenarios where this tool is appropriate or preferred.

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