Get document event history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Return') and lists event types, but does not disclose the response format, pagination, or behavior for missing documents. The added examples provide some context beyond the name, but important behavioral details are omitted.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, and the second adds a practical usage context. It is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

The description adequately explains the purpose and event types for a simple read tool, but lacks details about the 'organization' parameter and does not describe the return structure. Since there is no output schema and only 50% schema coverage, some completeness gaps remain, though the tool is relatively simple.

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 only 50% because the 'organization' parameter lacks a description. The tool description does not compensate for this gap—it mentions document events but gives no explanation of what 'organization' or 'documentId' mean beyond the schema's minimal note. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 the chronological event/audit trail for a document, with specific examples of event types (created, updated, approved, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wflow_get_document by focusing on history rather than current document state.

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 through 'Useful for controlling and spotting inconsistencies,' but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like wflow_get_document or state when not to use it. It gives a context for use but lacks clear boundaries or alternative guidance.

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