batman_get_history

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It only implies a read operation through 'Obter', but does not disclose response format, pagination, authorization requirements, or whether the operation is safe beyond the verb.

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 a single short phrase, which makes it concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified: it provides no supporting details that would help an agent use the tool, so its brevity is efficient but incomplete.

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?

Although the tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description fails to explain what the history contains, what 'id' refers to, or when to use it. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly based on the provided information.

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 optional string property 'id' with no description, and the description does not mention it. With 0% schema description coverage and no compensation in the description, an agent cannot infer what the id parameter represents or how to use it.

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 'Obter histórico de Batmans' states a clear retrieval action ('Obter') and a resource ('histórico de Batmans'), and the word 'history' distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_current_batman or get_developers. However, it does not specify what kind of history is included, leaving some ambiguity.

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 such as batman_get_current_batman, batman_get_developers, or batman_get_priority_details. No context, exclusions, or example use cases are provided.

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