pine_get_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool polls history, does not stream, and lists special markers to look for, giving insight into expected responses. It does not cover rate limits or error conditions, but the behavioral details are adequate.

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: a one-sentence purpose, followed by usage guidance, a list of markers, and parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, achieving efficient communication.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, polling behavior, special markers), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage timing, behavioral hints, and parameter details. The presence of an output schema means return values need no explanation, and the description is complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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%, but the description adds clear semantics for all 4 parameters: session_id, max_messages, order, and from_message_id. It explains their purpose and defaults, compensating fully for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states 'Poll Pine's conversation history — the core way to see replies (no streaming).' This clearly identifies the tool's verb (Poll) and resource (conversation history), and distinguishes it from siblings like pine_send_message and pine_session_create, which have different purposes.

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 says 'Call after sending a message or starting a task. Wait a few seconds between polls,' providing clear context on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use cases.

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