list_episodes_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds a GET endpoint and paging parameters without contradicting those annotations, but it does not explain pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or event coverage.

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 definition is compact and front-loads the core action and endpoint, followed by a brief argument list. It contains no filler, though the Args block is minimal and could be integrated more elegantly.

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?

For a simple read-only list endpoint with an output schema, this is mostly adequate. However, it lacks explanation of what an episode history event is, how paging bounds work, and how it differs from related list tools, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the name and endpoint.

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 0%, so the description must provide meaning. It partially does by labeling start and length as paging values and episodeid as an Episode ID, but it does not clarify defaults, bounds, or whether episodeid filters the history.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List episodes history events', and the GET endpoint reinforces the action. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_episodes, though 'history events' could be more explicit about what is returned.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_episodes or list_history_stats. The endpoint and name imply a read-only history listing, but there are no stated prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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