get_tunnel_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 retrieves history with duration and token info, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on ordering, time range, pagination, or authentication requirements beyond the token parameter.

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 concise with only two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and included data, and the second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words.

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 partially explains the return values (duration, token) but omits other likely fields such as timestamps or status. With no output schema, more detail on the response structure would improve completeness. It does not mention pagination or ordering.

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 coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Retrieve the history of past tunnels' with a specific verb and resource. It also details what information is included (duration, token), making it distinct from sibling tools like list_tunnels.

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 suggests when to use the tool: 'when auditing past tunnel activity or debugging why a tunnel dropped or is no longer listed by list_tunnels.' This provides context for usage, though it does not give explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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