historial_perf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It adds genuinely useful behavior: metrics are local, retention spans weeks while ESXi keeps only 1 h, and by default results are filtered to weekday working hours in local time. It still omits read-only confirmation, return format, and any auth/execution requirements.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler; the data-source framing comes first and the filtering semantics second. The parenthetical about ESXi's 1 h retention is a slight detour but still earns its place as context.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and five parameters at 0% schema coverage. The description covers the data source and time-filtering concept but leaves parameter meaning, defaults, the 'entidad' selector, and the shape of the returned summary entirely unspecified.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly maps to several params (history span -> dias, working-hours filtering -> solo_horario_laboral/hora_inicio/hora_fin) but never explicitly names them, gives no units or defaults, and completely ignores 'entidad'.

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?

'Resumen de las metricas guardadas localmente por server.py --collect' identifies the resource (locally stored performance metrics) and the data source, but 'Resumen' is a weak verb and the definition never names or contrasts with the sibling 'performance' tool, leaving the historical-vs-live distinction to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The mention that ESXi only retains 1 h versus weeks locally implies this tool is for longer/historical windows, but the agent must infer that rather than being routed to it over 'performance'.

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