fsv_target_trend

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: results come back in chronological order ('oldest first'). It never confirms the operation is read-only, and says nothing about how many points are returned or how the limit interacts with history depth.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and the ordering rule, with the motivating use case trailing. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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-value explanation is not needed, and the ordering note covers the main surprise an agent would hit. The remaining gap is parameter-level guidance given 0% schema coverage.

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 must compensate for both parameters. It only weakly implies that 'target' is a host and that history is bounded, but never states the accepted identifier format for target or what limit actually caps (number of scans returned vs. returned rows).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show the risk-score trend for a host across its scan history') plus a notable ordering constraint ('oldest first'). It implicitly separates itself from siblings like fsv_compare_scans and fsv_scan_stats, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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 clause 'useful for reporting whether a site's posture is improving over time' gives a concrete motivating scenario, which is better than nothing. However, there is no when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to which sibling to use for a point-in-time or multi-host comparison.

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