get_user_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 only states a read-like operation, but lacks details about sorting, filtering, permissions, or whether the history is aggregated across entity types. The description is insufficient to understand behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 concise sentence. However, given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, many siblings), it is too brief and lacks structural elements like bullet points or usage hints. It is concise but not adequately informative.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling history tools. The description fails to explain return values, filtering options, entity types, or sorting. It is insufficient for correct selection and 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?

The input schema has 11 parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not mention any parameters or explain their meaning, failing to add value beyond the schema types. For a tool with many parameters, this is severely lacking.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'history', and the scope 'all activities performed by a specific user in the current workspace'. It distinguishes itself from sibling history tools (e.g., get_task_history, get_document_history) by focusing on user-level activities.

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 implies usage when a user's activity history is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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