get_property_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, setting the safety and variability expectations. The description adds that it returns 'audit history', but does not elaborate on the structure or potential volume of records. With annotations covering the core behavioral traits, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but could benefit from a brief additional sentence on limitations or usage context. It earns a 4 for being efficient though slightly terse.

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?

Given the tool is simple (read-only, two parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain what the audit records contain or handle pagination, but the schema covers parameters and annotations set expectations. It is sufficient but not enriched.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get audit history') and the resource ('system property'). The name 'get_property_history' reinforces this. Although it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_system_property', the inclusion of 'history' effectively distinguishes it as a historical view.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention preconditions or limitations. There is no implicit or explicit indication of context or exclusions.

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