get_issue_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 mentions max_results default (20) and that issue_id accepts ID or URL. However, it does not specify pagination behavior (e.g., whether more results can be fetched beyond max_results), the order of returned activities, or what constitutes a 'change' (e.g., field changes, comments). The behavioral disclosure is adequate but incomplete.

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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the purpose followed by a brief parameter list. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or fluff. The purpose is front-loaded as required.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed here. However, the description lacks important behavioral context such as pagination mechanisms (cursor/offset), authentication requirements, and whether the tool returns only recent history or full history. For a history tool, these omissions limit completeness.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining the purpose of each parameter: issue_id (ID or URL), max_results (max activities, default 20), and instance (optional). This adds value beyond the schema's names and types. However, it omits details like the allowed range for max_results or consequences of omitting instance.

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 'change history' for a YouTrack issue, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_issue (issue details) and get_issue_changes_summary (summary). The verb 'Get' and resource 'change history' are specific and unambiguous.

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 (e.g., get_issue_changes_summary, poll_changes). It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where this tool should be avoided.

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