Get System History

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds context on the type of data (activity history) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or data retention. Beyond the annotation, it offers moderate value.

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?

Two short sentences that are front-loaded and free of fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds detail and usage context. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., a note on default time range) but remains efficient.

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?

An output schema exists (not shown but indicated), so description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks information on history limitations (e.g., retention period, event types) and pagination. For a history tool, these gaps affect completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (fqdn, since) well. The description adds no additional meaning or usage context for the parameters, meeting the baseline expectation.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'get' and resource 'activity history' for a Beaker system. Describes what data is shown (who, what, when). Distinguishes itself from siblings like get_system_details (current state) and list_systems (list of systems) implicitly, but could be more explicit about the historical scope.

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?

Says 'Useful for investigating system state changes and usage patterns,' which gives a context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives among siblings. Guidelines are implied but not directly actionable.

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