cork_get_installer_history

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

With no annotations, the description compensates by explaining the state taxonomy and the critical caveat that 'success' means RMM acceptance, not completed on-device installation. It also specifies ordering, but doesn't go into authorization or whether any side effects occur, though 'List' strongly implies read-only.

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 convey purpose, ordering, return fields, filtering, and a non-obvious success definition without waste. The most important caveat is placed at the end but stays tightly integrated.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description lists the meaningful return contents and disambiguates state semantics. Combined with fully documented parameter schema, an agent has what it needs to invoke the tool 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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters fully. The description reinforces the filtering by client/device but adds little beyond the schema; baseline 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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('past software install attempts') with explicit ordering and included fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cork_get_installer_setup, which targets setup configuration rather than history.

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?

States the tool is for retrieving install history and offers filtering by client_uuid/device_uuid, establishing clear context. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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