msp360_get_plan_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation (retrieve run history), the scoping to a specific computer, and the optional date filter, which conveys the core behavior. It does not cover result ordering, pagination, error handling, or how the year/month/day filters interact, but it is reasonably transparent for a read-oriented fetch.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then appends the optional filter. There is no filler, and every element adds value: the verb, the target resource, the computer context, and the optional date constraint.

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 simple read-only history retrieval, the description plus fully described schema covers the essentials: required IDs and optional date filtering. The lack of an output schema and annotations leaves return-format details unspecified, but the agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly. A slight gap is the absence of guidance on how year/month/day should be combined or omitted.

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 each parameter (hid, id, year, month, day) is already documented with type and meaning. The description adds only a high-level 'specific date' notion without explaining how the date components combine, but per the baseline rule, the schema's full coverage makes the description's minimal parameter detail acceptable.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('run history for a backup/restore plan on a computer'), which clearly communicates the operation. It is distinct from sibling tools like msp360_get_plan_info, msp360_start_plan, and msp360_stop_plan because it targets run history, and the optional date filter further clarifies scope.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving plan run history, giving the agent a clear reason to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving the decision among plan-related siblings to inference.

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