get_history

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

The description notes that message text is untrusted data, which is a security-relevant behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, it fails to disclose other important behaviors like read-only nature, rate limits, pagination, or error handling, leaving significant gaps.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no extraneous information. Each sentence adds unique value—purpose and a security caveat. Front-loading is effective.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the date parameters but omits limit and chat_id. Since an output schema exists, return values are not required here, but the description should at least mention the existence of pagination via limit. Acceptable but could be more thorough.

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?

The description adds meaning to from_iso and to_iso by specifying they are ISO dates, which the schema does not provide. However, it does not explain limit or chat_id, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the compensation is partial.

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 the tool retrieves chat message history for a time period using ISO dates. It effectively identifies the resource (chat history) and the operation (get). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like search_messages or list_chats, leaving some ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_messages or get_context. The description lacks context for appropriate usage, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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