get_collection_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the result is paginated, includes local actor, UTC timestamps, before/after values, and that limit range is 1–100. These details go beyond the schema and give an agent a solid sense of what will happen, though ordering and cursor mechanics are not detailed.

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 two concise, dense sentences with no filler. The main action and resource are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds only necessary behavioral details. Every sentence 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?

For a read-only tool with an output schema present, the description covers the key information an agent needs: what history is returned, useful response fields, pagination, and limit bounds. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists. A brief mention of ordering or explicit cursor usage would make it fully complete, but the current description is adequate.

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 adds meaning by defining the limit range (1–100) and indicating that cursor is used for pagination. Collection_id is not explicitly described, but its purpose is obvious from the tool name and the phrase 'collection history', so the description provides enough semantic value.

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 the specific verb 'Read' and clearly identifies the resource: paginated collection creation, rename/description, alias, and decision history. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_record_history, which concerns record history rather than collection 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?

The description implies when to use the tool: to read history for a collection, especially around creation, renames, descriptions, aliases, and decisions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_record_history, so the usage context is implied rather than clearly contrasted.

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