session_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the data source (history.json), which weakly signals a local, read-only retrospective lookup, but it says nothing about retention scope, ordering, or whether the file must exist. For a no-annotation tool this is thin.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the key concept (recent session chronology) is front-loaded. It is terse but not padded, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter read.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and there are no parameters to document. The remaining gap is the missing distinction from the many sibling listing tools, which the description should have addressed given the crowded namespace.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No misleading parameter hints are present.

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 names the resource ('sessioni recenti') and the underlying data source ('history.json'), giving a real sense of what the tool returns. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb and does not differentiate itself from close siblings like list_sessions, list_sessions_all, or find_in_sessions, so an agent must guess how 'history' differs from a plain session listing.

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 when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named despite several sibling tools covering session listings and searches. The agent is left to infer that this is the historical/past-sessions view on its own.

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