chatgpt_list_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a read-only list and specifies the return attributes, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it triggers loading), pagination behavior, or error conditions. The verb 'list' implies no mutation, but additional details would improve transparency.

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 with two clauses, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by the return fields. Every word contributes to clarity with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists the return fields and filter capability. It lacks explicit mention of the `limit` parameter's effect or how this tool relates to `chatgpt_search_history`, but the tool is simple and the description covers the essential use case. The absence of such details is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the `query` parameter filters by title, but does not explain the `limit` parameter's meaning (e.g., controls the maximum number of returned items). Since `limit` is completely undocumented in both schema and description, the parameter semantics are incomplete.

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 a specific verb ('list') and resource ('historical conversations currently loaded in ChatGPT sidebar'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling `chatgpt_search_history` by scoping to the sidebar's loaded items. It also specifies the return fields (title, conversationId, URL), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for browsing loaded history and filtering by title, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus `chatgpt_search_history` or `chatgpt_select_history`. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so the usage context is only implied.

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