get_stats_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns historical samples of CPU/memory/FPS, implying read-only access, but does not detail return format, ordering, pagination, or any side effects. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

This is a simple getter tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description plus schema cover the essentials. It could benefit from an explicit pointer to 'get_stats' for current data, but overall it is adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 fully documents the sole parameter 'keys' with a clear description ('Comma-separated stat keys to filter (omit for all)'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter information, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get historical stats samples' with the specific resource being 'recent CPU/memory/FPS history', using a specific verb and scope. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_stats' by explicitly using 'historical', making the tool's 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?

The historical framing implies this tool complements 'get_stats' (likely current stats), but no explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The use case is implied but not spelled out.

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