history

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavior. It indicates a read operation but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. The description is straightforward but minimally transparent.

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 a single sentence of 10 words, highly concise and front-loaded with the core action. No wasted verbiage; every word earns its place.

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 simple list retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks details like pagination, ordering direction (ascending/descending), or whether it returns full messages, which would improve completeness.

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 100%, meaning the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'session identifier' and 'max entries (default 20)', so it provides little additional value.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'conversation history', and the scope 'for a session', and specifies the order as chronological. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'recall' or 'recall_recent', which are not session-specific.

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 implies use for session-based history retrieval but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools (e.g., recall, recall_by_time). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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