Get API Request History Detail

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations by disclosing that headers, query params, and body fields are masked, and that original Auth, scripts, and variable references are unavailable. The warning never to resend mask placeholders is exactly the kind of behavioral caveat an agent needs.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, masking behavior, and replay guidance, with the critical constraint front-loaded. No redundant restatement of the name or title.

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?

With an output schema present, return shape needn't be described; the description covers the two things an agent must know (data is masked, not replayable). Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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 both historyId and workspaceId are already documented in the schema; the description adds no syntax or default detail for them. Mentioning requestId and environmentId risks slight confusion since those are not parameters of this tool.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('sanitized API history snapshot') tied to the historyId-driven detail lookup. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_history by returning a snapshot rather than a listing, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Explicitly rules out the tempting misuse ('This is not a replayable template') and names the correct alternative path: rerun via the saved requestId plus the intended environmentId. It does not say how to obtain a historyId (e.g., via list_history), which keeps it short of a 5.

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