read_practice_history

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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, idempotent operation, yet the description still adds substantial non-obvious behavior: page caps (20 items / 80000 chars), that detailed results contain answers and must not be surfaced pre-practice, cursor-based pagination, and that old records may lack snapshots so current question text must not be substituted and mastery must not be auto-judged.

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?

Purpose, mode selection, and pagination/edge-case constraints are front-loaded and every clause carries operational meaning. It is dense and somewhat terse, but there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be restated, yet the description still surfaces the edge cases an agent needs (missing snapshots, sensitive answers, cursor termination at null). Nothing required to invoke or interpret the tool is missing.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: include_details semantics, the before/next_before continuation contract, and an implied per-page limit. record_id is only loosely implied ('某题'), leaving a small gap.

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 and resource: reading the original/variant answer history for a given question, with the default-summary vs. detailed modes. This clearly separates it from siblings like read_practice_prompt and read_practice_feedback, though it never explicitly names an alternative to route against.

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?

Gives operative usage rules: default to summary, set include_details=true for full data, do not display detailed results before an independent re-practice, and continue via next_before (not page numbers). It stops short of explicit when-to-use-this-vs-sibling guidance.

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