List TacticalRMM Agent History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific API endpoint ('/agents/<agent_id>/history/'), which is useful context, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or what kind of history is included.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds value. It does not waste space or repeat obvious details.

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 rich schema and annotations, the description is mostly complete. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but the response_format parameter covers this. It could be slightly more informative about what the history entries represent, but for a list operation 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 schema already documents all parameters (limit, offset, agent_id, response_format). The description does not add any meaning beyond reinforcing the agent_id path parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('history for one TacticalRMM agent'), and the endpoint is specified. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_agents and list_agent_software, which operate on different resources.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or provide a context such as 'use when you need agent activity logs.' The only usage-related hint is implicit from the resource name, but no explicit guidelines exist.

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