Get Metric History

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no additional behavioral details such as pagination, permission requirements, or side-effect warnings; it simply states the function without enriching beyond the annotations.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, no filler. It avoids redundancy and is easy to parse.

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 schema and annotations are rich (6 described parameters, output schema, read-only hint), so the description need not explain return values. However, the lack of usage guidance makes it contextually incomplete for selecting this tool over siblings, though invocation itself is well-supported by structured fields.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for all 6 parameters with 100% coverage, including enums and defaults. The description only mentions the metric types (CPU, memory, load), which mirrors the schema's enum, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already specifies.

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?

Description clearly specifies the tool retrieves historical CPU, memory, or load values for a server. The verb 'Get' and resource 'historical values' make the purpose unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like analyze_server or snapshot.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_server or snapshot. The description only states what it does, without exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent without selection context.

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