get_resource_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the endpoint, the HTTP method, and the returned metrics, which is useful. However, it does not describe the response structure, whether the call has side effects, or any authentication requirements, so behavioral transparency is only partially covered.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the endpoint and the metrics returned. Every part adds information and there is no redundant or filler text.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies the resource, the endpoint, and the returned metrics. It could be more complete by describing the output shape or timeframe format, but the schema covers the parameter and the description covers the basic return content.

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 schema already documents the only parameter, 'timeframe', with a reasonable description ('Timeframe to report over, as used by the Tdarr UI'), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter detail such as accepted formats or example values, so the baseline score of 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 names the action ('Get'), the target resource ('Tdarr Server resource history'), and even provides the exact POST endpoint. It also specifies the returned metrics (CPU, memory, heap usage over time), which distinguishes it from generic status tools, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like get_resource_stats or get_performance_stats.

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 about when to choose this tool over the many similar sibling tools such as get_resource_stats or get_performance_stats. The endpoint and metric list imply a use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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