get_history

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses that the tool returns all changes including field edits, comments, and status changes, and uses a default session if not provided. This adds meaningful behavioral context, though it omits details like pagination or sorting.

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 extremely concise with two sentences covering purpose, object types, return content, and default session behavior. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and key information is front-loaded.

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 history retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers core aspects (what is returned, acceptable types, session behavior). It lacks details on output format or possible limitations, but is sufficient for basic usage.

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 value beyond the schema by specifying valid object_type values and the default behavior for session_id. However, it does not describe object_id beyond its schema definition. Given 0% schema coverage, this partial coverage is helpful but incomplete.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get the change history of an item.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), the resource ('change history'), and acceptable object types. This differentiates it from sibling getters that retrieve current state rather than history.

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 implies when to use (when needing change history) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It lists object types and default session behavior, which helps, but lacks guidance on distinguishing from other history-related tools among siblings.

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