prtg_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful '[READ]' hint and scopes the operation to one sensor, but it does not disclose the output format, data resolution, timezone handling, rate limits, or other behavioral traits that an agent might need to anticipate.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by a clear Args block. Every sentence adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

The parameter guidance is sufficient for making a basic call, but the description is otherwise minimal. There is no output schema or description of the returned data shape, and the lack of usage exclusions leaves some ambiguity relative to sibling tools.

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. It does this well by explaining all three parameters: sensor_id as the PRTG objid, hours as a look-back window with a 24-hour default, and target as a config-defined PRTG target with an omission default. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states this is a read operation returning historic data points for one specific PRTG sensor over a recent window, so the resource and scope are identifiable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like prtg_sensor_details or zabbix_item_history, which also involve retrieving sensor-related data.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The '[READ]' marker and 'Historic data points' imply usage for retrieving past sensor data, but the description does not say when not to use it or which sibling should be preferred for current sensor details or other history sources.

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