signalgrid_install_history

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), and the description adds valuable behavioral context: pagination defaults, response envelope structure (total, count, offset, items, has_more, next_offset), and error handling for system_profiler failures. It also clarifies that results are ordered newest first.

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 well-structured: a concise purpose statement, a practical use-case sentence, then an Args/Returns breakdown. It includes all necessary details without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (4 optional params, no output schema provided), but the description fully covers input filtering, pagination, response formats, and error behavior. It even specifies the exact structure of the JSON response, so an agent knows what to expect. Combined with the annotations, this is a complete package.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds meaning by explaining the JSON envelope fields and item attributes (name, version, source, install_date), which are not present in the schema. It also ties name_contains to the XProtect use case, providing extra context beyond the schema's description.

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 clearly states the tool provides 'Software install history (OS updates, security content, packages), newest first' and frames it as 'the audit trail of what changed on this Mac and when.' This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like signalgrid_installed_apps or signalgrid_software_updates.

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?

It gives explicit use cases: 'Use to verify security updates actually landed (e.g. filter name_contains='XProtect') or to spot unexpected installs.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, but it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it stops 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.