get_anomaly_history

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

Despite no annotations, the description clearly states 'Behavior: read-only' and explains the return value as a time-series of scores, plus an edge case (empty result meaning no anomalies or history disabled). This provides sufficient behavioral context for an agent.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value without redundancy. It efficiently covers usage, behavior, and related tools.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, parameter hints, and even prerequisites and related tools. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to invoke.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant additional meaning for parameters beyond the schema descriptions; it merely restates the 'optional' nature and gives examples already present in the schema.

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 states the tool replays historical anomaly scores for a specific service, using verb 'replay' and specifying the resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by mentioning detect_anomalies for live scores and query_metrics for custom PromQL.

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?

The description explicitly lists when to use the tool (post-mortem reconstruction, trend analysis, incident context) and mentions prerequisites. Implicitly suggests alternatives by stating detect_anomalies for live scores.

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