get-workflow-history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination and the types of data returned (version numbers, timestamps, status changes, metadata). However, it does not detail pagination behavior like sorting order, max page size, or error handling for invalid workflow IDs.

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, front-loaded with the action and return content, and the second sentence provides a use case. Every sentence is valuable with no fluff.

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 tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, output content, and pagination. However, it could mention default values for pageNumber or error scenarios.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes the parameters well. The description adds context about pagination (pageNumber) and the workflow ID, but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema's descriptions already offer.

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 it retrieves a paginated history of versions for a specific workflow, including version numbers, timestamps, status changes, and metadata. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-workflow (current state) and list-workflows (list of workflows).

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 for tracking workflow evolution and accessing previous versions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No comparisons or exclusions are provided.

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