tascan_condition_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by detailing the output: score trend, grades, deltas, findings, and assessor. This goes beyond the annotations by describing the return structure. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., empty history) or response limits, but the annotations cover the core behavior adequately.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence is front-loaded with the verb and resource, then lists specifics. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return contents. However, it lacks details on response ordering (chronological?), pagination (if many assessments), and error handling for missing assets. The annotations (openWorldHint=false) hint at limited results, but completeness is adequate but not fully fleshed out.

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 input schema has one parameter (asset_id) with description 'Asset ID', and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add type or format details for asset_id (e.g., is it a UUID or serial number?), but the phrase 'per-serial-number condition ledger' weakly implies asset_id corresponds to a serial number. This adds marginal meaning beyond the schema, keeping the score at baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and explicitly identifies the resource ('asset's longitudinal condition history'), detailing what it returns: score trend, assessments with grade, delta, findings, and assessor. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tascan_get_scan_history and tascan_get_report by focusing on condition history, and the 'per-serial-number condition ledger' clarifies scope by serial number.

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 description provides clear context by specifying 'longitudinal condition history' and listing the contents (grades, trends, findings), so an agent knows to use this when needing historical condition data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., tascan_get_report for summaries). The context is strong enough for a 4.

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