get_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, but the description adds real context: results are a bounded page, exact replays and quarantined/superseded records are filtered out, and returned content is untrusted. The untrusted-data warning is a valuable safety disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by the alternative and a safety note. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is redundant.

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 paginated read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering semantics, pagination bounds, the key alternative, and a safety caveat. The remaining gap is the unclarity around the keys parameter, but overall it is nearly sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 25% – uid is documented in the schema, but keys, limit, and offset carry no description anywhere. The phrase 'bounded page' hints at limit/offset pagination, but nothing clarifies what keys selects or how paging interacts, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a bounded page of active canonical history') with precise scope qualifiers about what is included and excluded. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (download_history), so an agent can distinguish the tools without opening schemas.

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?

'Use download_history for large analysis' gives an explicit alternative and the condition selecting it, which is the most important routing decision for this tool. It does not address when to prefer get_metric_series or get_run, but the primary alternative is stated.

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