catalog_get_agent_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation (getting history) and mentions record structure, but does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or whether the data is real-time. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds valuable detail on record contents and usage context. No redundant information.

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 presence of an output schema and full schema parameter coverage, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and output. It could mention pagination or how to use limit/start, but it's complete enough for most use cases.

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%, with descriptions for all three parameters (agent_id, limit, start). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

States clearly that it gets execution history of a catalog agent's runs, with details on what each record reports (status, metadata changes). Distinguishes from sibling tools like catalog_run_agent (which starts runs) and catalog_list_agents (which lists agents).

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?

Explicitly notes the tool can be used to confirm that a run started by catalog_run_agent finished and what it changed, providing a specific use case. However, does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives beyond the implied connection to catalog_run_agent.

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