Session 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. It discloses the read-only nature through 'Return' and details what the history includes (inputs, outputs, errors, captured console). While ordering and limit behavior are not elaborated, the description gives sufficient behavioral context for a read-only query tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the action, resource, and content types. The parenthetical adds useful detail without unnecessary words. Every element earns its place.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return contents and the intended use case. It does not describe the exact ordering of entries or the format of errors/console output, but the phrase 'last N entries' in the schema plus the description provides enough context for correct invocation.

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%, so both parameters (name and limit) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, but it does clarify what kind of data the session history contains. Baseline 3 applies.

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 returns evaluation history for a session and lists the specific contents (inputs, outputs, errors, captured console). The verb 'Return' plus the resource 'evaluation history of a session' is specific and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like exec, list_sessions, and create_session.

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 clear usage context: it is useful for reviewing what state was built up in a session. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select this tool when a review of session history is needed.

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