Get Monitor History

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get monitor activity history' without disclosing pagination, filtering behavior, output structure, or any side effects. For a read tool, the lack of detail about what 'activity' entails is a significant gap.

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 brief sentence with no redundancy, but it is under-specified. It is concise but not appropriately sized given the tool's complexity, as it omits needed details without being efficient in conveying meaning.

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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what 'activity history' returns, how filters interact, and what the response format is. The minimal description leaves too much unspecified for a tool with this complexity.

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%, and all parameters have descriptions, so the schema alone documents parameter meanings. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get monitor activity history' identifies the resource (monitor) and action (get history), but 'activity history' is vague and does not specify what constitutes activity or the time scope. It distinguishes from get_monitor_status (status vs. history) but not strongly.

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 like get_monitor_status or list_monitors. There is no mention of exclusions, preferences, or conditions that make this tool the right choice.

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