get_record_history

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ordering (newest-first), page size range (1–100), content (timestamps, local actor, before/after snapshots), precondition (after archive), and pagination behavior. This is rich, accurate behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The core behavior and ordering are front-loaded, and pagination is addressed in the second sentence. Every phrase adds value.

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 an output schema present, return values need no further explanation. The description covers what the tool reads, the ordering, the limit range, the required post-archive state, and how to page through results. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 explains the cursor parameter ('next_cursor' continuation to older events) and the limit's range/ordering, but it does not explicitly describe record_id. Still, the tool name and context make record_id's role evident, and the pagination semantics are well covered.

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 ('Read'), a specific resource ('audit events'), and the scope ('1–100 newest-first'). It also distinguishes the content of the history from simper read tools by mentioning timestamps, actor, and before/after snapshots.

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 gives a clear precondition ('available after archive') and explicit pagination guidance ('Pass next_cursor to continue to older events'). It does not name sibling alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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