list_status_sessions_history_all

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, non-destructive profile. The description adds useful behavioral details, such as metadata_item_id being translated internally to metadata_items.id/parents.id/grandparents.id and sort restrictions (metadataItemID may not be used), but it does not disclose default scope, pagination, or result limits for an endpoint named 'history_all'.

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 efficiently structured: a one-line purpose, the endpoint, then a clear 'Args' list where each parameter earns its place. There is no fluff or repetition, and the front-loaded purpose makes the intent immediately obvious.

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?

With 12 optional parameters and an output schema present, the parameter docs are complete, but high-level operation context is missing. The description does not clarify the relationship between viewed_at, viewed_at_query, and viewed_at_query_2, nor state whether the endpoint returns all history or paginated results, leaving ambiguity for a large 'history_all' listing.

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 schema provides zero descriptions for its 12 parameters, and the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter with meaningful detail. It includes format examples (viewed_at as `viewedAt>=12456789`), syntax rules for sort and direction, and a special note about metadata_item_id translation.

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 opens with 'List Playback History,' a clear verb and resource that identifies the operation as a read of history data, distinct from sibling list_status_sessions (active sessions). It does not explicitly name a sibling or clarify the 'all' scope, relying on the tool name for differentiation.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_status_sessions, get_status_sessions_history_by_history_id, or delete_status_sessions_history_by_history_id. The description is solely a parameter reference with no usage context or exclusions.

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