watch_history

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds useful facts: newest-first ordering and default log exclusion with a payload-size rationale, but omits read-only nature, auth implications, and whether the server parameter changes execution context.

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, no filler, front-loaded with the core purpose and key default. The rationale clause about log volume earns its place by explaining a non-obvious default.

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 four-optional-filter list tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering and log volume well. It leaves some gaps around server/container filter behavior and read-only execution, but schema coverage fills most parameter detail.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds the reason behind include_logs' default, but the limit, server, and container filters are explained only in the schema.

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 ('List') and resource ('recorded restart incidents'), plus ordering ('newest first'). The resource is distinct enough from most siblings, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with watch_list or alerts_history.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The only conditional instruction concerns include_logs, not selecting this tool over watch_list, watch_check, or alerts_history.

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