system_packages_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'History' implies a read-only listing, but the description does not clarify scope (system-wide vs per-user), what data points are returned, retention limits, or whether only completed or also failed tasks are included. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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 a single short phrase with no filler words, making it efficient. However, it is a noun fragment rather than an explicit instruction, and it omits useful context such as scope or related tools. It is concise but slightly too sparse to be considered excellent.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description may be enough for an agent to make a basic call and interpret the return schema. Still, it leaves contextual gaps around when to use it relative to update/run tools and what 'history' encompasses, which are not covered by the output schema.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description adds no parameter information because none is needed.

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 identifies a specific resource—'OS package upgrade tasks'—and implies the operation is retrieving a history. It is not a tautology and can be semantically distinguished from related tools like system_packages_updates or system_packages_update_run. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not name any siblings to aid differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of related package tools such as system_packages_update_run, system_packages_update_test, or system_packages_updates. No conditions, prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.

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