get_card_location_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the operation's purpose and does not disclose whether it is read-only (though implied by 'get'), whether it returns full history or a limited set, ordering, pagination, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It includes a clarifying parenthetical that adds specificity without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and there is no extraneous information.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or the nature of the history data. It only says 'movement history' without specifying the format (e.g., list of changes, timestamps, actors), pagination, or whether it covers all changes or a limited window. For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, this is incomplete and leaves an agent guessing about the response.

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 fully describes the only parameter (card_id as an integer with description 'Card ID'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter, such as format expectations or constraints. Since the schema already documents it adequately, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('movement history (board/column/lane changes) of a card'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like move_card, as it is the only one that retrieves historical location changes. The parenthetical clarifies the exact type of changes covered, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention any alternative tools. However, the purpose is inherently clear for a read-only history lookup, and the name implies usage for auditing or tracking card movement. This is an implied usage scenario rather than explicit guidance, so it falls short of a 4.

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