get_resource_history

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

No annotations are provided, so description bears full burden. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, auth requirements, rate limits, or data retention. Only implies it is a read operation via the verb 'get'.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences for purpose and usage, plus one line for parameter. Front-loaded with the core function, no wasted words.

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?

Covers purpose and parameter adequately. With an output schema present, return value description is not needed. Could mention ordering or timestamp inclusion but overall sufficient for a simple historical event tool.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the limit parameter's purpose and default value, adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 verb 'get', resource 'Resource Monitor threshold events', and scope 'recent (CPU/RAM/IO spikes over time)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_resource_usage which would be current metrics.

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?

Context is provided ('Useful for plotting recent trends or spotting recurring load problems') but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. Adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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