View Application Timeline

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: events are sorted chronologically (oldest first), and visibility differs between public and private events. This gives the agent important context about output order and data privacy. A slightly higher score would require mention of pagination or rate limits.

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 two sentences with no extraneous words. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently adds behavioral details. Every sentence adds value.

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 and low complexity, the description adequately covers what events are included, sorting order, and visibility. It lacks mention of error conditions or required permissions, but these are partially addressed by the read-only annotation. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for this type of tool.

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 100% with a single parameter (applicationId) described as 'The ID of the application'. The description does not add new information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool retrieves the timeline of events for a job application, listing specific event types (status changes, notes, messages, interview scheduling). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_application (which gets the application object) or get_application_messages (messages only).

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. Implicitly, it is for viewing a chronological event history, but no comparison with siblings or exclusion conditions are provided. The information about public vs. private visibility is useful but does not substitute for clear usage direction.

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