host_alert_history

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'complete pagination' which hints at pagination support, but it does not state read-only status, return format, permission requirements, or whether it aggregates data. The meaning of 'precise restoration of pairing' is unclear, leaving the agent uncertain about what the tool actually returns.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It is efficient but slightly cryptic due to the ambiguous 'precise restoration' phrase. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though not overly detailed.

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 that queries alert history, with many sibling history tools, the description lacks essential context. It does not explain the difference from event_get or history_get, nor does it indicate the output structure (despite an output schema being noted, it is not visible). An agent would be uncertain about when and how to invoke it correctly.

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%, with each parameter having a basic description (host ID, trigger ID, days). The tool description does not add extra semantics, such as how pagination is controlled or the relationship between days and alert retrieval. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles the heavy lifting, but the description contributes little.

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 it queries alert history for host and trigger with pagination and precise pairing restoration. However, the phrase 'precise restoration of pairing' is ambiguous, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like event_get or history_get which also handle history queries. The verb 'query' and resource are clear, but the scope is vague.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (event_get, history_get, trigger_get), the agent has no explicit direction on which tool fits which scenario. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions.

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