common-get-item-workflow-event-by-path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Gets entries' (implying a read-only operation) but doesn't mention any side effects, permissions required, rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of events, pagination). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly improved by adding a bit more context without sacrificing brevity.

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 complexity (a workflow history retrieval tool with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'workflow history' entails, the format of returned entries, or any behavioral nuances. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying the 'path' is for an item. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate or add value beyond the 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 verb ('Gets') and resource ('entries from the workflow history for the specified item'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'common-get-item-workflow-event-by-id' (which likely does the same thing but uses an ID instead of path), so it misses the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the 'by-id' version or other workflow-related tools in the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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