get_vps_metrics_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the historical/time-series context, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose details like the time range, granularity, or whether the metrics are aggregated, which would be valuable for a metrics-history tool.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling tool. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. The main gap is the lack of detail about the returned time-series data (e.g., time range, resolution), but the annotations cover the safety profile and the purpose is clear. An agent can call this tool correctly with the given information.

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 carries the burden for parameter meaning. The description implies the vps_id identifies which VPS to fetch history for, but it doesn't add explicit detail about the parameter format or constraints. With only one parameter and a clear name, the baseline is acceptable, but the description could have explicitly stated that vps_id is required and identifies the target VPS.

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 states a specific verb ('get'), a resource ('VPS'), and a clear scope ('historical CPU/RAM/disk metrics'). It also explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_vps_stats, which provides a current snapshot, making 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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: for graphing usage over time, not just the current snapshot. It names the alternative (get_vps_stats) and explains the distinction. It doesn't explicitly list exclusions or other alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to choose correctly.

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