With regard to troops standing to their arms in response to a drum call (or trumpet), I have scouted about a little in C17th and C18th sources and have not found any direct reference to the practice.
However, I was directed to 'A system of camp-discipline, military honours, garrison-duty, and other Regulations for the land Forces, collected by a Gentleman of the Army' 2nd Ed.1757
This Included Kane's 'Camp Discipline' and 'Discipline for a Battalion in Action' and other collected examples dating back to 1694, notably, 'Orders given by his Grace the Duke of Marlborough to the Army under his command in Flanders'
A C17th source 'A Regulation for Garrison Duty' (1694) describes 'Reveille' as being "beat at break of day as usual", in garrison or camp, at any rate.
In Marlborough's 'Orders for the British Foot on the Day of March', it was in ordered that "no Reveille beats the Day the army is to march except when ordered.." and "as soon as a General beats, all officers and Soldiers dress themselves, and prepare for a March."
Although I found no direct reference to the practice of 'Stand-to,' Marlborough's subsequent order is illuminating regarding the term itself:
"That when Assembly beats to strike and pack up all the Tents, load all Baggage, call in the Quarter Guards and Rear Guards and to stand to their arms in the streets."
There is an indication here, I can set it no higher than that, that Reveille was beat at daybreak in Garrison or camp - but not on active service in the field. If, when on the march or in the field in the face of the enemy, there was a another call two hours before daybreak to rouse troops to stand to their arms, I have yet to find referenct to it.
My reasonably educated guess is that NCOs moving among the men might be a more effective way of ensuring they were awake and forming up quickly and quietly. As for quiet, it does seem a good idea not to alert the enemy to your exact morning precautions, (although this could hardly have been be a military secret given the enemy were presumably doing something similar on their side of the hill), in case they choose simply to put in their attack an hour earlier than your own time of 'stand to'. That is assuming the enemy commander might think such a thing worthwhile, night attacks on any scale being notoriously risky enterprises. In the campaign I have been studying, the French sent in attacks before dawn and waited till daybreak; the difference possibly being terrain and the quality of troops they were facing, as well as the specific need for surprise. The British on one occasion marched all night, then lay on their arms till dawn, while waiting for a flanking contingent to get in place (they arrived too late) then went in. The complexity of the terrain, and the difficulties posed by a three-pronged attack made a night attack inadvisable. There was no likelihood of surprise and one column made as much noise as possible to draw enemy artillery fire.
As to the vintage of the term 'Stand-to', the answer might simply turn on what era NCOs graduated from saying 'Stand to your arms,' as they went among the men (assuming they once did), to a briefer 'Stand to.' I hesitate to speculate how far back that might have been. The army has long demonstrated a somewhat contradictory attitude to the virtues of brevity compared with the merits of regulation thoroughness, but one wonders whether there was ever a time when a tired, hungry corporal would bother with four words when two would do.