system_resource_usage_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 behavioral disclosure. It only names a topic and provides no information about auth requirements, time range, aggregation, read-only behavior, or response characteristics.

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 very short and free of redundancy, which supports conciseness. However, it is under-specified as a noun phrase and lacks the structure of a complete tool description with a verb and scope.

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?

Although the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description leaves important ambiguity about what 'system resource usage' means versus system_global_usage_history and what period 'history' covers. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's purpose from this description alone.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, zero parameters warrant a baseline of 4; the description does not need to add parameter detail.

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 'Historical resource usage' conveys the general domain and temporal aspect, but it is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It can be partially distinguished from 'latest' siblings by the word 'Historical,' but it does not specify which resource or scope is covered.

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 versus alternatives such as system_resource_usage_latest or system_global_usage_history. The description provides no context, exclusions, or comparisons, so an agent cannot determine which sibling is appropriate.

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