system_global_usage_history

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavior. It only labels the data as 'history' and does not state whether it returns a time series, what resource metrics are included, what time range is covered, or what permissions are required. The description is a noun phrase rather than an explicit behavioral statement.

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 one short sentence plus an Args line with no filler, and the core scope is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a one-parameter tool, though the terseness contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.

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 the return structure does not need to be explained in the description. However, the description leaves unclear what 'global resource usage' includes, the time range or interval of history, and how this tool differs from sibling history/latest tools, making the context only partially complete.

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%, so the description must compensate for the parameter documentation. It adds only 'Username' to the schema's existing 'User' title, providing minimal clarification about the expected value but no format, example, or additional constraints. It does not meaningfully improve an agent's ability to supply the parameter correctly.

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 that the tool provides global resource usage history for one user, adding the key user-scope detail to the tool name. It is clear enough for an agent to understand the core purpose, though it lacks an explicit action verb and does not distinguish itself from nearby sibling tools.

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 system_global_usage_latest, system_resource_usage_history, users_get_usage, or admin_usage. The phrase 'for one user' implies scope, but no alternatives, exclusions, or selection criteria are provided.

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