get_test_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly identifies the tool as read-only ('never triggers a new test run', 'reports on what's already been recorded'). This adequately covers the main behavioral trait. However, it could add more details like handling of empty results or performance implications for large histories.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and no wasted words. The description efficiently conveys the tool's role and its safety characteristic.

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 simple read-only query tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, read-only nature, and relationship to record_test_run. It doesn't mention ordering (most recent first) but that is in the parameter description. Minor gap in not stating that history is returned sorted, but overall complete.

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 both parameters fully described. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The context about reading history is helpful but does not directly enhance parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states it queries previously recorded test run history, with the verb 'query' and resource 'test run history'. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it reads rows written by record_test_run and never triggers a new test run, differentiating it from record_test_run and other tools.

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 states this tool is for reading existing history and never triggers a new test run, guiding the agent to use it when querying past results. It indirectly points to record_test_run as the alternative for writing, providing clear usage context.

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