history_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get...details', implying a read operation, but does not confirm idempotency, required permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The agent lacks critical behavioral information.

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 sentence, which is concise but not structured. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, but lacks details. While it avoids verbosity, it does not fully earn its place due to missing critical 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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is overly simplistic. It fails to explain the output, parameter usage, or how it relates to other history or diagnostic tools. The agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without additional hints.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any meaning to parameters like 'page', 'since', 'service', or 'pageSize'. An agent cannot infer their purpose or expected format from the description alone.

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 says 'Get download/import history details', which clarifies it's about retrieving history. However, it is somewhat tautological as it restates the tool name 'history_detail'. It does not specify what kind of details or differentiate from sibling tools like 'download_status' or 'import_issues'.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context with sibling tools.

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