Catalog Get Agent History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that each record reports run status and metadata population counts (enumerated/added/updated/removed), which helps the agent interpret results without contradicting annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise explanation of the record contents and the practical use case. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without repetition or filler.

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 output schema exists, annotations cover the safety profile, and all parameters are documented in the schema, the description provides sufficient contextual glue: why to call it, what it returns at a high level, and how it relates to catalog_run_agent. Nothing essential for calling 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters, including defaults for limit and start and the agent_id reference to catalog_list_agents. The description adds high-level context about run history but does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get the execution history of a catalog agent's runs.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like catalog_run_agent by framing the purpose as confirming that a run started via catalog_run_agent finished and what it changed.

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 a clear use case: use this tool to confirm whether a catalog agent run finished and what metadata it changed. It references catalog_run_agent as the initiating tool, giving contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives beyond that.

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