get_workflow_execution_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses that the result is complete and raw, includes all event types, and can be very large, which is valuable context. It does not mention pagination or output format, but the size warning is substantive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core function, followed by a necessary warning and a pointer to an alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

Covers the core function and points to a clear alternative for compact summaries, but leaves the relationship with the fetch_workflow_history sibling unexplained and provides no return-format or pagination hints. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is a moderate gap.

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 three parameters including the region enum. The description adds no additional parameter-level details, so the 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 a specific verb and resource: get the complete RAW execution history of a Temporal workflow, listing event types such as activity executions, signals, and timers. However, the sibling 'fetch_workflow_history' appears nearly identical and is not differentiated, so it falls short of a 5.

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 routes to get_workflow_step_results for a compact summary with resultUri, and warns about the large size of the response. Does not address when to choose this over the similarly named fetch_workflow_history sibling, so the guidance is not fully exhaustive.

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