get_agent_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Return') and provides workflow context, but doesn't disclose permissions, side effects, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The usage timing adds some value but not deep behavioral insight.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no redundant information. The first sentence states purpose, the second adds usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. It covers what the tool does and when to use it. However, it omits explicit read-only confirmation and parameter details, which are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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% for agent_id, and the description doesn't explain the parameter's format, source, or meaning beyond the vague 'this agent's.' It does not compensate for the missing schema description, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name alone.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Return this agent's past decisions and current reputation score.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool evaluate_action by focusing on history/reputation rather than action evaluation.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'before evaluate_action if you want to check standing first, or after a WARN/BLOCK to review why.' It also names the sibling evaluate_action. However, it lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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