Get API Request History Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral disclosure: sensitive headers, query parameters, and body fields are masked. This is useful context beyond the structured annotations because it sets expectations about data redaction before invocation.

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 with the core action stated first and a single important behavioral caveat second. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only lookup tool with complete parameter descriptions, full annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what is returned, that it is a single entry, and that sensitive fields are masked. No additional behavior or return-format explanation is needed.

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 input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond indicating the tool handles a single history entry, which maps to historyId but does not meaningfully extend the schema's descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies the resource ('a single API history entry') with clear scope ('request and response detail'). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_history tool by emphasizing the singular entry and detailed view.

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 usage context is implied through 'single API history entry' and 'detail,' which suggests this tool fits when a specific history entry's full details are needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_history or state when not to use this tool, so guidance remains inferred rather than explicit.

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