plant_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format (timeline, latest-first) and content (watering/observation records). It does not explicitly state read-only, but 'returns' implies a safe read operation, which is sufficient for this simple tool.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and ordering. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple tool type and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core behavior well. However, the lack of parameter explanations and explicit usage guidance leaves minor gaps, but the description is not misleading.

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?

The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not explain 'name' or 'limit'. The description only implies that 'name' refers to a plant, but adds no detail about the limit parameter or their semantics. This is a clear gap.

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 it returns watering/observation records as a latest-first timeline. The verb 'returns' and resource 'plant's records' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_plant and list_plants by focusing on historical records.

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 use for viewing a plant's history, with clear context from the content type and ordering. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is evident from the tool's name and siblings.

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