get_alerts_history

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It thoroughly explains the two modes, filtering capabilities, pagination, time context, and that it provides current time for LLM calculations. It is transparent about behavior without contradictions.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Tool Role, Core Functions, Usage Scenarios, Args, Returns) and front-loaded key info. However, it is somewhat verbose and has minor redundancy (e.g., first line repeated in Core Functions).

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 14 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all aspects: modes, filtering, pagination, time context, output formats, and return value description. It is complete and leaves no critical gaps.

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 0%, but the description lists all 14 parameters with explanations, mode-specific applicability, and defaults. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema, especially for mode-dependent parameters like maintenance_state, from_timestamp, to_timestamp, page_size, and format.

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 retrieves current alerts or alert history from Ambari cluster, with two distinct modes. It distinguishes itself from sibling get_current_alerts by also handling history. The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'alerts' are specific.

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 explicit required usage scenarios for both current and history modes, and lists when to use based on user queries. However, it does not include exclusions or when not to use this tool versus siblings like get_current_alerts.

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