chatgpt_select_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the action (open history) and return value (most recent answer), and gives a behavioral hint (prefer ID). But it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it switches the current context), error handling for missing or ambiguous identifiers, or prerequisites like browser state. This is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds the usage preference. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool has 3 optional params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential return information (most recent answer) and identification methods. However, it omits important context such as what happens when no parameters are provided, whether multiple identifiers conflict, and whether this tool affects the current browser/conversation state. This is functional but not fully complete.

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 input schema provides only parameter names with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that conversationId is an ID, url is a ChatGPT /c/ URL, and title is a unique title. It also implies priority order ('优先使用 ID'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though it lacks format examples or edge-case behavior.

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's function: '打开历史对话' (open historical conversation) via conversationId, URL, or title, and return the most recent answer. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like chatgpt_list_history and chatgpt_search_history, which list or search rather than select/open.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when you have a conversationId, /c/... URL, or unique title to load a specific historical conversation. It even advises '优先使用 ID' (prefer ID) as a parameter preference. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like chatgpt_search_history, so it falls short of full usage guidance.

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