Get TacticalRMM Check History

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

The description states 'This tool is read-only,' but this is already captured by the readOnlyHint annotation. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination details, rate limits, required permissions) are disclosed. The description adds no context beyond the annotations, so it does not meet the bar for added transparency value.

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 two short sentences that directly convey the action and read-only nature. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It is highly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the simple read-only nature, strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and fully documented parameters, the description is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's scope. While there is no output schema, the response_format parameter hints at expected outputs. It does not elaborate on the history data structure, but for a simple retrieval tool this is acceptable.

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 parameters (limit, offset, check_id, response_format) are already fully documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline 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 action ('Read history'), the specific resource ('one TacticalRMM check'), and the endpoint ('/checks/<check_id>/history/'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling history/list tools by focusing on a single check's history, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 a single check's history but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like tacticalrmm_list_agent_history or tacticalrmm_list_checks. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so the guidance is only implicit.

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