Get All Chores History

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does mention pagination, which is a useful behavioral trait, but does not specify ordering, inclusion criteria (e.g., only successful completions), authentication needs, or potential side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 paginated list tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the core functionality and pagination, and the schema handles parameter details. However, it could explicitly note the contrast with single-chore history tools, though this is inferred from the name and sibling context.

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 schema already describes both limit and offset with defaults and constraints (100% coverage). The description's mention of 'pagination' merely echoes these parameters without adding new semantic meaning, so it remains at the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 function: 'Get completion history for all chores' with pagination. The verb 'get' and resource 'completion history' are specific, and the qualifier 'all chores' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_chore_history that likely target a single chore.

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 phrase 'for all chores' provides clear context for when this tool should be used (bulk history), implicitly distinguishing it from get_chore_history for a single chore. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or include exclusions, so it falls short of the highest score.

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