get_monitor_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions a fallback to current status if the history endpoint is unavailable, which is valuable non-obvious behavior. However, it omits details about pagination, history limits, or error handling, though the presence of an output schema mitigates some gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second sentence adds behavioral nuance about the fallback. There is no redundant information or fluff.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description covers the core purpose, time-range behavior, and fallback behavior, which is sufficient for a simple tool. It lacks details like history retention limits or timezone handling, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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%, with parameter descriptions explaining formats for from_time and to_time. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond stating that it returns events within a time range, so it does not elevate beyond the schema baseline.

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 starts with 'Get alert/trigger history for a monitor', which is a specific verb+resource that clearly defines the tool's function. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_monitor_status (current status) and get_monitor (monitor configuration), while 'Returns events within the time range' adds scope.

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 implies usage for fetching historical alert/trigger events, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_monitor_status or get_active_alerts. There is no direct comparison or exclusion, leaving the use case to be inferred from the name and basic description.

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