get_watch_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get playback history' but doesn't describe what this entails—such as whether it returns recent views, all-time history, or includes metadata like timestamps. It also omits details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects, which are critical for a tool that likely accesses user data.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly, which aligns well with best practices for conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity of a tool that retrieves user playback history with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list of items with details), how pagination works with chunk parameters, or any behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.

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 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters (limit, account_id, chunk_size, chunk_offset) with their purposes. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how parameters interact or typical use cases, resulting in the baseline score 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'playback history for the Plex server', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_watched_status' or 'get_recently_added', which might also retrieve viewing-related data, so it doesn't achieve the highest score.

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. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to siblings like 'get_watched_status' or 'get_recently_added', nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context unclear.

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