eval_history

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

Annotations already indicate read-only behavior. The description adds that the tool lists and tracks history, but does not disclose details like pagination, ordering, or authorization requirements. Adds modest value beyond 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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus parameter/return notes. Front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Ideal for quick scanning.

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 an output schema present, return value details are less critical. However, the description does not explain what constitutes an evaluation run or how it relates to other eval tools. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 fully compensates by explaining the 'limit' parameter's purpose and default value. Adds clear meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 lists past memory evaluation runs and tracks changes over time. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like eval_baselines or eval_run, which also deal with evaluations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as eval_run, eval_drift, or eval_baselines. The description implies its use for historical tracking but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.

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