get_tunnel_history

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, but side effects, permissions, or rate limits are not mentioned, leaving some uncertainty about the tool's behavior.

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 concise sentences that pack a clear purpose and usage guidance without fluff. It is well-structured and directly to the point, with no unnecessary details.

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?

The description provides a clear overview, including output hints (duration and token) and concrete use cases, which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it does not detail the return structure or error behavior, so it is not fully complete.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The main tool description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 (retrieve) and resource (history of past tunnels), with specific details like duration and token information. It effectively distinguishes itself from list_tunnels by focusing on past tunnels and mentioning the debugging scenario.

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 explicitly provides use cases: auditing past tunnel activity and debugging why a tunnel dropped or is no longer listed by list_tunnels. This gives clear, actionable guidance on when to choose this tool, satisfying the 'when to use' requirement.

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