skill_call_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 phrase 'ready report' hints that the tool returns an aggregated, pre-formatted output rather than raw data, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, or what the report contains. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no wasted text, and it is appropriately brief for a parameterless tool. It could arguably be more descriptive, but it remains efficient.

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 simple parameterless tool, the description provides the essential purpose and scope. However, it does not explain what 'ready report' means in terms of output structure, and it does not clarify how this tool differs from get_calls or get_stats. Given the sibling context, an agent might not know which tool to use without further investigation.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Following the baseline rule for 0 parameters, the description appropriately does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics.

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 'Call history for today — ready report.' This clearly indicates the tool returns a pre-aggregated report of calls for the current day. It is specific about the resource (call history) and time scope (today), and avoids being a tautology. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_calls, which also deals with calls, so it loses a point.

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 like get_calls or get_stats. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing. The only implied usage is for today's call history, but it does not explain why the agent should choose this over a more flexible tool.

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