Get Cell History

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns a chronological list of changes with timestamps and user info, and implies pagination through page_size and page parameters. No contradiction with annotations. The description supplements but does not fully detail all behaviors (e.g., limits), hence a 4.

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: a concise purpose sentence, a list of arguments with defaults, and the return type. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity (5 params, no nested objects).

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 no output schema, the description explains the return value (chronological list with timestamps and user info). All 5 parameters are documented, covering the required IDs and optional pagination. The description compensates fully for the 0% schema coverage and provides enough context for correct invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description carries full burden. It lists all 5 parameters with clear, meaningful explanations: sheet_id, row_id, column_id as required IDs, and page_size/page for pagination with defaults. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema properties.

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 starts with an active verb and specific resource ('Retrieve the full modification history for a specific cell'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like smartsheet_get_sheet or smartsheet_get_sheet_version, which handle broader data. It succinctly states what the tool does and why it's useful (audit trails).

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 explicitly says 'Useful for audit trails and tracking project status changes over time,' providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives beyond the sibling list. A 4 reflects the clear guidance without exclusions.

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