knowbe4_users_risk_score_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 of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination behavior beyond the schema, whether the history returns all events or date-filtered ranges, time window/limits, or what the response structure looks like. As a read-only history tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral context would be expected.

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 compact two-sentence structure with no wasted words. The second sentence provides a genuine use-case hint. It's appropriately sized for a single-resource history tool.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return value shape and behavioral nuances. It doesn't disclose what a 'risk score history' entry looks like, how much history is retained, or whether ordering is implied. Acceptable for a simple history read but could do more given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents user_id, page, and per_page. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does clarify the user_id's purpose ('specific user') in prose. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full 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), resource (a specific user's risk score history), and dimension (over time). It distinguishes from siblings like knowbe4_groups_risk_score_history (which is per-group) and knowbe4_account_risk_score_history (which is per-account), though it doesn't explicitly name them. The phrase 'specific user's' makes the scope clear.

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 gives a use case ('tracking individual improvement in security awareness') but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools. For example, it doesn't note that account-level or group-level risk score history is available via sibling tools. The context is implied rather than explicit.

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