list_approval_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should carry full behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or safe, nor does it mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The instruction to 'Present summary_zh in chat' implies output handling but not behavioral constraints.

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 two sentences: the first defines the tool's core action, the second adds usage guidance and a post-call instruction. Every phrase serves a purpose, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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's simplicity (two optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, trigger phrases, and a key response field (summary_zh). However, it does not describe the full return format or pagination behavior, which would be helpful but not essential.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates the optional status filter and limit without adding new semantics or examples beyond what the schema provides.

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 specifies the action (list) and the resource (approval audit history for the user). It explicitly mentions trigger phrases (看审批记录, view approval history, audit log) and instructs to present summary_zh, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 clearly states when to call the tool ('when the user asks to...'). However, it does not explicitly exclude cases where alternative tools (e.g., get_approval_status, list_pending) would be more appropriate, nor does it compare to siblings.

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