chatgpt_select_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool opens a conversation and returns the latest answer, but it does not mention side effects such as changing the current browser/conversation state, authentication or network requirements, or failure/not-found behavior.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the accepted identifiers, states the output, and ends with a useful precedence rule. No filler or redundancy.

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 core open-and-return contract is described, and the output is simple enough that an output schema may not be needed. However, since all parameters are optional in the schema but logically at least one is needed, the description should clarify that requirement and explain behavior when none is supplied or when the conversation is not found.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: conversationId, /c/... URL, and unique title. It also gives precedence guidance ('优先使用 ID'). It does not specify exact URL format or whether exactly one parameter must be provided, but it adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 a specific verb ('打开' / open), a specific resource ('历史对话' / historical conversation), and a concrete output ('返回最近一条回答' / return the latest answer). This distinguishes it from sibling search/list/new tools.

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 intended use is inferable: use this tool when you have a conversationId, /c/ URL, or unique title and need to open a historical conversation. However, it does not explicitly compare itself with alternatives like search_history or list_history, and it gives no when-not-to-use guidance.

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