kchat_get_channel_history

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: 'recent' is undefined, message ordering is unknown, pagination semantics are unstated, and no permission or privacy constraints are mentioned. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves significant gaps.

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 the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently worded, though its brevity is partly the source of the missing guidance rather than pure economy.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an unstated ordering/pagination model, the description is too thin for a tool whose behavior an agent must predict. An agent cannot tell whether messages arrive newest-first, whether 'recent' is bounded by time, or what a returned page looks like.

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%, with page, limit, and channel_id all documented in the schema including defaults and bounds. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recent messages from a kChat channel'), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby kchat_get_thread_replies sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative such as kchat_get_thread_replies for threaded content. The only hint is the word 'recent', which is left for the agent to interpret.

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