list_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a GET request and a read operation, but gives no further behavioral context such as pagination behavior or filter semantics. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the eight repeated 'Query parameter' lines are largely filler and do not earn their place, even though the overall structure is easy to scan.

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 8 optional parameters and several closely related sibling tools, the description does not provide enough context about what history entries this returns or how to select this tool over list_history_since or list_history_indexer. The output schema exists, but the tool's domain meaning and filter behavior remain unexplained.

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 had the burden of explaining parameters. It only repeats each parameter name followed by 'Query parameter,' which adds little beyond the schema's property names, types, and defaults. No guidance is given on valid values, especially for ambiguous parameters like sort_direction and event_type.

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 'Read History' and provides the GET endpoint, so the verb and resource are clear. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like list_history_since or list_history_indexer, which also relate to history.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The sibling list includes several history-related tools, but the description does not mention any distinguishing use case or exclusion criteria.

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