guardrail_agent_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds 'a real, persisted audit trail,' but does not explain ordering, pagination (beyond schema's default limit), authentication requirements, or the structure of the returned history. This is minimal transparency.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and resource, and the dash-separated clarification adds value without excess length.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not describe the return format, what constitutes a decision, or any limitations/pagination behavior, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 compensate. It only implies agent_id via 'given an agent' and never explains the 'limit' parameter or its default. No additional meaning is provided beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states 'Return recent decision history for a given agent,' providing a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'a real, persisted audit trail' differentiates it from potentially transient data, and the sibling tools (guardrail_check, guardrail_record_outcome) suggest this is a historical lookup, distinct from check/record actions.

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 the sibling tools. It does not specify scenarios, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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