history_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it does state that the operation is a read-only retrieval of raw historical values rather than trend summaries. It does not mention auth needs, side effects, or default behavior, but for a simple history fetch these are not major risks. This is minimally adequate but leaves some behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the second sentence routes to an alternative tool. Every word earns its place.

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 and the input schema is fully documented, so the remaining need is selection context, which the description supplies with the trend_get alternative. It could more explicitly say 'use this for short-term raw data', but the combination of description and schema is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter with types, defaults, and value ranges (e.g., limit default 10, history data types, relative times for time_from). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable because the schema carries the full load.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '获取监控项原始历史数据' (get raw history data for monitored items). It explicitly names the key sibling distinction, '长期趋势用trend_get', so an agent can tell it apart from related history/trend 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?

It gives an explicit routing condition: for long-term trends, use trend_get, which implies this tool is for raw/detailed history. It does not enumerate other sibling alternatives or define exactly when 'long-term' begins, but the main competing tool is handled clearly.

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