Get Interview History

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, which already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. It does not disclose what the return format is, whether it includes only completed interviews, or any limits. For a tool with no output schema, the lack of return information is a notable 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain what the history contains, how it is structured, or when it is applicable. Given the availability of numerous sibling tools, more context about the return payload and usage scenario would be necessary to make the description complete enough.

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 100%, with basic descriptions for simulation_id and agent_name. The description does not add any extra meaning or clarify how the parameters relate to the returned history. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 retrieves conversation history for a specific agent interview, using the verb 'Get' and naming the resource. It distinguishes from interview initiation tools like mirofish_interview_agent, though it does not explicitly contrast with mirofish_simulation_history or explain the scope beyond 'specific agent interview'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that an interview must have been conducted) or contrast with siblings like mirofish_interview_agent or mirofish_get_simulation_timeline. The description offers no context for selection.

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