test_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions output fields and service parameter options, but it omits read-only nature, ordering, pagination, error behavior, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that could be expected to have such behaviors.

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 very short and front-loads the core purpose, but it is partly a fragment ('Recent diagnostic runs (type, status, Passed/Failed, timestamps).') and mixes parameter semantics awkwardly in the second sentence. It is not verbose, but it lacks structured clarity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the full context. It gives a basic idea of return fields and one parameter but omits output format, limit semantics, and any guidance on how this fits with sibling diagnostic tools. The tool is not complex, but the description is still incomplete.

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?

The description adds meaning for the 'service' parameter (site alias | service_id | 'all'), but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate for both parameters, but it only partially addresses one.

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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (recent diagnostic runs) and the fields returned (type, status, Passed/Failed, timestamps), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like test_result. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get', and it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it's not perfectly clear.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, and it doesn't reference any sibling tools. The agent is left to infer usage from the minimal context.

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