results_time_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the read-only probing intent and the optional CSV export side effect. However, it does not explain whether csv_file writes to disk vs returns content, whether source paths must be pre-existing, or any permission/limit considerations.

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 whole description is one front-loaded sentence with no filler: the action and resource come first, then source forms and optional export. It earns its place while staying minimal.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, this definition leaves a substantial gap: parameter roles like association and entity_index are unexplained, and usage tradeoffs against sibling results tools are absent. The output schema covers return shape, but that does not make up for missing invocation details.

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 0%, and the description only maps to two parameters: source (index path or file/time records) and csv_file (optional export). Seven parameters exist, so point, series, association, variable, and entity_index remain semantically unexplained beyond their titles.

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?

States a specific action ('Probe') and resource ('physical-time series') as well as two source forms ('index path or explicit file/time records') and optional CSV export. This is clear enough to show it deals with time-history extraction, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the similarly named results_probe sibling.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this over siblings like results_probe, results_summary, or results_compare, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The only contextual clue is the source wording, which implies existing index paths or file/time records but does not say how to decide between tools.

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