Host State Changes

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations by explaining that the output is a filtered subset of state-change entries, not all checks. It does not cover ordering or pagination, but annotations already cover the safety profile, so the added filtering semantics is valuable and non-contradictory.

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 a single sentence that immediately communicates the essential filtering behavior and incident-timeline use case. There is no filler, and the core distinction is front-loaded.

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?

Given full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the one-sentence description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns and when to use it. The 'rather than every check run' contrast provides the key selection context without needing a longer description.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including defaults and the required exact hostname. The main description adds no parameter-level information, which matches the baseline score of 3.

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 identifies the resource as host state changes and specifies that only entries where a host's state changed are returned, contrasting with 'every check run.' This differentiates it from sibling list_host_checks, though the verb 'list' is only implied by the tool name rather than stated in the description.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to see the timeline of an incident rather than every check run. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the contrast with check runs points toward the appropriate sibling and gives enough guidance for selection.

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