get_query_history

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

No annotations are provided, but the description fully compensates by stating it returns a list with status, execution time, and results, and by explaining session-scope and default behaviors. It is transparent about what the tool does without contradictions.

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 well-structured with a clear title, brief explanation, parameter list, and two examples. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers session scope, parameter behavior, and provides examples. The tool is simple and the description comprehensively addresses all relevant aspects.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden. It adds meaningful explanations for both parameters: 'Maximum number of queries to return (default: 10)' and 'Only show successful queries (default: true)', which go beyond the schema's type and default values.

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 it 'Get[s] the history of executed queries in this session', with specific verb and resource (queries) and scope ('in this session'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like execute_query and validate_query_without_execution by focusing on history/log retrieval.

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 clear context with usage examples (e.g., 'Get last 10 successful queries') and explains parameters. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names, but the intended use is well-implied by the session-scope and examples.

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