athena_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does add real context: results are per-user, not workspace-wide, and limited to recent executions. It doesn't state ordering, whether running/failed executions appear, or other side effects, but as a history/read tool those omissions are minor.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and contains a compact Args block; no filler or redundancy.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, purpose, scope, and parameter semantics are all covered. Only minor behavioral details like sort order or included execution states are left unspecified.

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?

Both parameters are described beyond the schema: workspace_id is explicitly 'optional... to filter the list,' and limit gets a range (1-500) and default (20) that the schema doesn't have. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this fully compensates.

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?

Names the resource (Athena executions) and scope (caller's recent history), so an agent can distinguish it from a broader execution list. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve,' but the meaning is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'for the caller (per-user history)' implies when to use it: to browse the current user's recent Athena executions. It doesn't explicitly compare against siblings such as athena_get_execution_status or athena_get_results, nor say when not to use it.

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