get_resource_stats_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it identifies the underlying system view (sys.dm_db_resource_stats), the 15-second granularity, the specific metrics shown, and the 'sustained pressure warnings' feature. It does not mention Azure-specific limitations, but the parameter default hint partially covers that.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the action and resource, then succinctly listing what is shown. Every sentence provides useful information with no wasteful filler.

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 read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential points: source, granularity, metrics, and warnings. It omits Azure-specific constraints, but the schema's default database name hints at that. The tool is simple enough that this level of detail is adequate.

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?

Both parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema (database_name and window_minutes), giving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 retrieves resource utilization history with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('sys.dm_db_resource_stats'), and lists the metrics it covers (CPU, data I/O, log write, memory). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_io_stats or get_wait_stats, which address current or different aspects of resource usage.

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 usage through phrases like 'history' and '15-sec granularity', suggesting this is for historical trend analysis. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, nor does it point to alternatives such as get_io_stats for current stats. The guidance is present but implied rather than explicit.

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