get_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full behavioral burden. It hints at return content (outcomes, a success summary) but says nothing about scope (per-printer vs global), ordering, pagination beyond the limit param, or whether the history is bounded.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the resource. It is concise, though this brevity contributes to the specification gaps noted elsewhere.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, this short description is insufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly or know what it will get back.

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?

Two parameters exist with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema does not compensate. The description never mentions 'limit' or 'printer_id' — notably it does not say the history can be scoped to a single printer, which is a meaningful omission.

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 a verb-ish resource, 'print history', with a hint at content ('outcomes and a success summary'). But it does not distinguish this from sibling history/diagnostic tools such as get_events, inspect_print, or get_snapshot, and 'print' is ambiguous between a verb and a printer.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives like get_events or printer_status, nor any prerequisite or context. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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