history_listUserOperations

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It effectively describes the return payload structure (actor, action, target, timestamp) and specific operation types monitored. However, lacks safety/performance context (e.g., time range limits, default windowing, or pagination behavior) that would help an agent understand operational constraints.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence establishes function; second details return structure with parenthetical specifics. Every clause earns its place without repetition of structured metadata.

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?

Adequate for a zero-parameter query tool: explains intent and return structure. However, given the dense sibling namespace (6 history_list* variants), description should clarify scope boundaries—specifically that this tracks user-initiated operations (claims, completes) versus system-generated history events.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters, which per guidelines establishes a baseline of 4. Description neither adds nor subtracts from this baseline since there are no parameters to document.

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?

States specific verb (Query) and resource (user operation audit log). Lists concrete operation types tracked (claim, complete, delete) which helps distinguish from sibling history_list* tools that track different entities (ActivityInstances, ProcessInstances, etc.). Could explicitly clarify 'user operations' context relative to task management vs other history scopes.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to invoke this vs alternatives like history_listTaskInstances or history_listProcessInstances. No mention of audit granularity (e.g., 'use for tracking manual task assignments vs automatic process events').

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