get_calibration_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the data source path, which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, result volume, ordering, or pagination behavior for a history query that defaults to 50 rows.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the source front-loaded and no wasted words. It is terse rather than bloated, though the brevity costs it some completeness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and this is a straightforward read tool. However, with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves meaningful gaps an agent would need to guess at.

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 0% and the description is silent on both 'limit' and 'model_id'. It does not explain that limit caps history rows or that model_id filters to a specific model, so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 + resource ('Get calibration history') and even names the data source (~/.msty-admin metrics DB), so the agent knows exactly what is retrieved. It does not, however, distinguish this from similarly named siblings such as bloom_get_history or run_calibration_test.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus the many history/calibration siblings (bloom_get_history, run_calibration_test, query_vibe_proxy). The source is named but no usage condition or exclusion is given.

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