itsm_get_remediation_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'gets' history and includes MTTR/success rate, but does not reveal whether it is read-only, how results are ordered, whether historical data is bounded by default, or if any side effects occur. This is minimal disclosure for an unannotated 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, well-structured sentence that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word adds value 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?

For a simple getter with two optional params and no output schema, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It does not differentiate itself from similar sibling tools like itsm_get_mttr_stats, nor does it mention any behavioral caveats or return format, which could lead to incorrect selection in a tool-rich environment.

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% (both limit and service have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds little parameter detail beyond the schema, but it does imply that 'all' actions are returned unless service filtering is applied, which is a slight enhancement.

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 says 'Get the history of all auto-remediation actions' with a specific verb and resource, and it mentions MTTR and success rate as output details. It is distinct enough from siblings by focusing on 'history' and 'remediation actions', though it does not explicitly call out alternatives like itsm_get_mttr_stats.

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 usage context is implied: one would use this tool to retrieve remediation history. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related tools (e.g., itsm_get_mttr_stats) or any exclusions. It does not say 'use for X, not for Y'.

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