list_history

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description merely repeats the read-only nature. It adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as pagination behavior, history retention limits, or how filtering by event_type works.

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 a clear one-line summary. However, the long list of parameters repeated without any descriptive content makes the structure boilerplate-heavy and less informative than it could be.

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?

Despite having an output schema and safety annotations, the tool has 12 parameters with no meaningful descriptions and no usage guidance. An agent would struggle to know what values to provide for several parameters or how this history listing differs from sibling history tools.

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 needed to compensate, but it only lists parameter names as 'Query parameter' without explaining types, allowed values, or meanings. It provides slightly more than nothing, but it does not clarify ambiguous parameters like sort_direction, event_type, languages, or quality.

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 gives the explicit endpoint 'GET /api/v3/history', making the action and resource clear. It does not distinguish itself from related siblings like list_history_series or list_history_since, so it falls short of a 5.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_history_series or list_history_since. No conditions, exclusions, or recommendations are provided, so an agent has no help choosing this over sibling tools.

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