get_reliability_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, performance implications, or required permissions. While the tool name suggests read-only access, this is not explicitly stated.

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 sentences long, front-loads the key purpose, and uses plain language. Every sentence contributes useful context without redundancy.

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 has only one optional parameter and an output schema exists (not shown), the description provides enough context for an agent to understand when to use it. However, it could briefly mention the return format or typical usage patterns.

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 one parameter 'days' with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain its meaning or effect. Although 'days' is somewhat self-explanatory (number of days of history), the description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 data from Reliability Monitor including crashes, hangs, failed updates, and driver problems. It distinguishes itself by focusing on reliability history, which is unique among siblings. However, it could more explicitly differentiate from related tools like get_crash_history.

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 for 'spotting when trouble started' due to timeline alignment of installs/updates and failures, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like get_crash_history. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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