get_game_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the read-only nature of retrieving history and adds useful behavioral context about what data is returned and when it is appropriate to call. It does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or error conditions, but the get semantics and content enumeration are sufficiently clear.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and contents are front-loaded, and the usage timing is stated second. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main things an agent needs: what the tool returns and when to use it. It could optionally describe the output format or behavior when no finished game exists, but the current description is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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%, and the single required parameter roomId is already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond implying that history is scoped to a specific room, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb (获取/get) and resource (完整的游戏历史), and enumerates exactly what is included: all votes per round, elimination order, and game results. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_round_status or get_arena_status, which target current state rather than full history.

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 explicitly says the tool is best used after a game ends or for reviewing past games, giving clear timing context. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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