get_status_sessions_history_by_history_id

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds the endpoint and the parameter note ('the historyKey from above'), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response format, error cases, or whether the history item is returned with full details. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal context beyond them.

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 very concise, comprising a title line, the HTTP path, and a parameter explanation. It is front-loaded with the purpose ('Get Single History Item') and the endpoint. The only minor waste is the 'Args:' section which essentially repeats the parameter description, but overall it is efficient and to the point.

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 tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description is fairly complete for a simple retrieval operation. However, it relies on the agent understanding 'the historyKey from above' which is not self-contained. It could benefit from stating that this tool is for fetching a specific history entry after listing them, and perhaps mentioning what the response contains (though the output schema may cover that). The description is adequate but has a notable gap in providing self-contained context.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the history_id parameter. The description does add meaning by stating 'the id of the history item (the `historyKey` from above)', which clarifies the parameter's origin. However, it does not elaborate on the type or format beyond what the schema (integer) already shows. Since the description partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves ambiguity about the 'from above' reference, a 3 is fair.

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 'Get Single History Item' and provides the HTTP endpoint, which clarifies the verb (GET) and resource (a specific history item). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_status_sessions_history_all and delete_status_sessions_history_by_history_id based on the explicit 'single' and GET verb, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from.

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 list_status_sessions_history_all or delete_status_sessions_history_by_history_id. It does not mention that this is for retrieving a specific history item by ID as opposed to listing all or deleting one. The context of 'the historyKey from above' implies a preceding list call but this is not explicitly stated as a usage instruction.

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