get_history

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, additional details like idempotency, side effects, or performance implications are missing, leaving some 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 only two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: first stating the main function, second adding details on filtering and return structure. No unnecessary words.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, filtering options, and return format (chronological order with fields). Without an output schema, it provides sufficient detail for a list retrieval tool. Could mention error handling or pagination, but acceptable.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by explaining that the parameters allow filtering by branch and limiting results, which is more descriptive than the schema's 'Optional: filter by branch' and 'Optional: limit results.'

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 the full thought history for the current session, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings like get_thought (single thought) and branch tools by focusing on history retrieval with optional filters.

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 mentions 'read-only' and 'chronological order,' providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer.

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