wp_performance_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Get historical performance data and trends,' which implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly confirm safety (e.g., no side effects) or mention any rate limits or authentication requirements. This is insufficient for the agent to assess risk.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is well-structured and front-loaded. While it could expand slightly on the nature of 'trends,' it avoids unnecessary verbosity and earns its place.

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 schema covers parameters well and there is no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool returns (historical performance data and trends) but doesn't hint at the format or whether the output includes time series data. For a tool with no output schema, a bit more detail would be beneficial.

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%, meaning each parameter has a description already. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 for high coverage, so this is adequate.

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') and the resource ('historical performance data and trends'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like wp_performance_stats, which is for current statistics, and wp_performance_alerts, which deals with alerts. The specificity of 'historical' and 'trends' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like wp_performance_stats and wp_performance_benchmark, the description should have indicated that this tool is for retrieving past data for analysis, not real-time stats or benchmarks. The lack of such guidance makes it harder for the agent to choose correctly.

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