get_watch_history

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only operation, and the description adds 'session information' as a behavioral detail about the response content. It does not mention pagination, limits, or ordering, but with annotations covering safety, the added context is sufficient for a 3.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core function, though 'detailed' is slightly vague.

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 three optional parameters and good annotations, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks details on output shape or how it differs from related tools like get_recently_watched. The absence of an output schema and sibling differentiation makes the description less complete for an agent making tool-selection decisions.

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 descriptions for all three parameters (limit, userId, mediaType), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, placing it at the baseline of 3.

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 tool retrieves watch history and includes session information, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_recently_watched or get_fully_watched, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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 alternative watch-history tools such as get_recently_watched or get_watch_stats. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer its scope. This is a significant gap given the number of similar sibling tools.

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