list_trends

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'inventory trend logs' implying a read operation, but fails to mention ordering, pagination, or what the logs contain (e.g., timestamps, values). It does not contradict annotations since none exist.

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 sentences long with no fluff. Every word serves a purpose: identifies the resource (trend logs) and the use case (inspecting equipment behavior). It is appropriately front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (list of historic telemetry), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits crucial details like return format, pagination behavior, and whether results can be filtered beyond equipment_id. An agent would lack sufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 0% with no descriptions for the 2 parameters (equipment_id, limit). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it only mentions 'equipment behavior' indirectly referencing equipment_id. Limit is entirely unexplained. For 0% coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 states 'Inventory trend logs (historic telemetry)' which gives a clear verb (list) and resource (trend logs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_equipment or list_alarms by focusing on telemetry data. However, it could be more specific about the scope of logs (e.g., by equipment id).

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 says 'Used by an agent inspecting recent equipment behavior', which implies a use case for equipment analysis. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among siblings.

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