glpi_get_problem_timeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does convey that this is a read operation returning timeline items, naming 'followups' and 'tasks'. However, it offers no detail on output format, ordering, error behavior, or the breadth of 'etc.', so transparency beyond the basics is thin.

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, information-dense sentence with zero waste. Every word earns its place, specifying the verb, resource, scope cardinality ('UM'), and examples of contents. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-from-id tool.

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 straightforward single-parameter read operation with no output schema, this description is largely sufficient. The examples 'followups, tasks, etc.' give the agent a reasonable sense of the payload scope. It loses a point only because the trailing 'etc.' is vague and no guidance is given on filtering, pagination, or large timelines.

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% (the 'id' param is documented as 'ID do problem'). The description reinforces that 'id' refers to a problem, matching the schema. Since the schema already fully describes the single parameter, the description adds no new parameter-level detail, warranting a baseline score of 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 the tool returns the timeline of a single problem, listing example contents (followups, tasks). It uses a specific verb ('Retorna') and resource ('timeline de UM problem'). It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, though the provider name glpi_get_problem_timeline itself is quite descriptive.

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 parenthetical '(followups, tasks, etc.)' gives an implied sense of what this timeline includes, which indirectly signals when to use it versus glpi_get_problem or glpi_get_problem_stats. However, there is no explicit when/when-not or alternatives named, so the guidance is only implied rather than stated.

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