Get Counter Trend

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds behavioral details about auto-selecting precision and sampling large datasets. This gives agents insight into how data volume is handled, which is not present in the annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, each informative: purpose, supported counters, parameter strategy, and auto-behavior. No redundant wording.

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 tool has 6 params and no output schema; description covers the key usage patterns and data handling. It lacks an explicit return-format description, but the purpose and sampling behavior give adequate context for the expected use case.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the tradeoff between latest_sec and start_time/end_time, and describes the auto-precision behavior tied to time ranges. This goes beyond raw schema definitions.

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 it retrieves historical counter values for trend analysis, listing supported counters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_system_overview or get_realtime_xlogs, which focus on different data. The verb 'get' plus resource 'historical counter values' makes the 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 description provides clear parameter guidance, noting when to use latest_sec vs start_time/end_time, and explains precision selection based on time range. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for typical use.

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