get_event_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'wraps NBAPI GetEventHistory' and returns historical events, but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, how pagination works (NEXTKEY), or what the response format is. This is minimal transparency for a tool that could have side effects or require specific handling.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and wraps the underlying API. It is efficient with no filler, front-loading the core action and optional filters. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return format, pagination behavior, and any limitations. It only vaguely states that it returns historical events, without describing the structure of the results, how NEXTKEY is used, or whether the operation is read-only. For a tool with four optional parameters and no other structured documentation, this is incomplete and leaves the agent guessing about expected output.

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% (all four parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds little beyond what the schema already provides, merely restating that event name and date range are optional. The NEXTKEY pagination parameter is not mentioned in the description, but the schema documents it. Thus, the description provides marginal additional value, warranting a baseline 3.

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 that the tool returns historical NetBox events and mentions the optional event name/date range filters. It also identifies the underlying API it wraps. While it distinguishes itself by focusing on historical events, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_events, which might offer a different scope.

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 retrieving historical event data by stating 'Returns historical NetBox events' and mentions optional filters. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., list_events) or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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