Get Child Node Upgrade Logs

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's added value is the explicit return shape (id, oldVersion, newVersion, isOk, createdAt). That is genuinely useful since no output schema exists. It stops short of disclosing ordering, pagination, or what an empty result means.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and return fields with no filler. Every element earns its place, and the field list is packed efficiently in parentheses.

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 paginated listing, this covers purpose, target, and return fields, and annotations handle safety. The remaining gap is behavioral detail an agent would want: sort order of 'historical' records, page_size behavior, and whether results are ever truncated, none of which appear in the schema for page_size.

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 67%; the critical nodeId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including 'from list_nodes. Do not pass "local"'. The description only restates that a specific child node is targeted and adds nothing about page/page_size, whose semantics rest entirely on schema defaults and bounds.

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 definition gives a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('historical upgrade records') scoped to 'a specific X-Pack Child Node', and it enumerates the record fields. An agent can tell this is a per-node upgrade history reader, distinct from list_nodes or get_container_logs, though the description never names a sibling to compare against.

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 only implied by naming the target ('a specific X-Pack Child Node'). There is no statement of when to prefer this over list_nodes, get_app_update_versions, or check_panel_upgrades, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given in the description itself (the nodeId caveat lives in the schema, not here).

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