Get Chat History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'retrieve history' and 'returns list of chat messages with timestamps and content,' which aligns with annotations. It does not contradict them.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and uses a clear structure. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections repeat schema info, making it slightly longer than necessary. Still, it's reasonably concise.

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 (one parameter object with four sub-parameters, good annotations, and an output schema), the description adequately covers the basic functionality. It mentions the return format (list with timestamps and content) but omits details like ordering or pagination, which are partially covered by the schema's limit parameter.

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 description lists the parameters (flow_id, session_id, limit, response_format) but does not add significant meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. The schema has descriptions for each parameter, so the description's summary is redundant. Baseline 3 due to schema coverage.

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 title 'Get Chat History' and description 'Retrieve chat message history for a specific flow' clearly state the action (retrieve) and resource (chat history for a specific flow). It distinguishes from sibling tools like flowise_delete_chat_history and other get/retrieve 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 description mentions the tool is 'useful for reviewing past interactions or debugging,' providing a use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. Implicitly, it's for reading, but lacks clear exclusions.

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