get_generation_history_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Read" implies a non-mutating operation and "metadata" implies it does not download audio, but the description does not disclose permissions, error behavior, or what metadata is returned.

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 front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary wording. It states the operation and scope efficiently.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description adequately signals that it returns metadata rather than audio. However, it omits where to obtain the history_item_id and lacks behavioral context that would normally be covered by annotations.

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 single required parameter is history_item_id, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain where the ID comes from or what format it takes. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, but the description adds only marginal meaning 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 states a specific verb and resource: "Read metadata for one ElevenLabs history item." The singular scope distinguishes it implicitly from list_generation_history and download_history_audio, but it does not explicitly name a sibling tool as the alternative.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when metadata for a single history item is needed. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to list_generation_history, download_history_audio, or delete_history_item.

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