Get Local ADT Action History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious context the annotations cannot convey: the data is redacted, it is local to this MCP server, and it records only mutation attempts, not provider history.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the scope qualifier. The second sentence, a disambiguation from provider history, earns its place; 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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described, and the annotations carry the read-only safety profile. For a single-parameter read tool, the description covers what is read and its scope; only the limit/pagination behavior is left unaddressed.

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 0% and the single 'limit' parameter (default 50, min 1, max 100) is never mentioned in the description. The schema's default and bounds make the parameter largely self-explanatory, but the description does nothing to compensate for the missing parameter documentation as required at this coverage level.

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 (read) and resource (redacted local audit history of mutation attempts through this MCP server), which is precise and scoped. It distinguishes itself from provider-side history (Alarm.com), though it does not directly differentiate from siblings like get-alerts.

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 by the scope statement (review local mutation-attempt audit records), and the 'not Alarm.com provider history' clause rules out a false alternative. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools such as get-alerts or adt-dashboard.

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