itsm_get_remediation_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions return of MTTR and success rate but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, pagination (though schema suggests a limit), authentication needs, or response structure. Minimal transparency beyond the basic output.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. It could be slightly improved by structuring details about parameters or output, but it remains concise without being vague.

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 tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview but lacks details on time range of history, output format, or how it relates to other ITSM tools. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (limit and service with descriptions), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'history of all auto-remediation actions', and mentions the key output metrics (MTTR and success rate). It distinguishes itself from siblings like itsm_get_mttr_stats by focusing on history rather than aggregated stats.

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?

The description implies usage for viewing remediation history but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as itsm_get_incident_timeline or itsm_dashboard_summary. No exclusions or context are given.

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