Get Thing History

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'state-change history' without explaining what that includes (e.g., timestamps, ordering, granularity), side effects, or required permissions. It is minimal and does not convey enough beyond the tool's name.

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 that is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple 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 is simple with one parameter and an output schema present (which handles return values). However, the description is sparse; it doesn't clarify what a 'state-change history' entails (e.g., chronological list, included fields). While not fatally incomplete, it leaves the agent to infer details that could be stated briefly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'thing_id' is described as 'The ID of the thing' in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 gets a thing's state-change history, using a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_thing (current state) and get_thing_state (likely current state only), and from chore history tools. No ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_thing, get_thing_state, or change_thing_state. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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