alerts_history

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive profile, and the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: entries are only written while a watcher is running, so absence of data is not evidence of health. That is real value beyond the annotations. It omits any note on result volume, ordering, or time-range limits, so it is not fully transparent.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core behavior stated first and the critical caveat immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and annotations already declaring the safety profile, the description covers the main trap (interpreting an empty result). It does not describe what an entry contains or how much history is returned, which leaves a modest gap for an agent that must summarize results.

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% and there is only one optional `server` parameter already documented as 'runs locally if omitted'. The description adds nothing about how the remote server choice affects which history is returned — a meaningful omission, since history is presumably stored per host. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Show recorded alert and remediation history'), which is more precise than a bare 'alerts' read. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby siblings `alerts` (current alerts) or `watch_history`, so an agent must infer the boundary between past recorded entries and live alert state.

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?

Provides one strong interpretive guideline — an empty list means nothing was recording, not that nothing failed — but gives no explicit when-to-use versus `alerts` or `watch_history`. Usage context is implied by the word 'history' rather than stated.

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