get_chat_history

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

Annotations already establish it is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds non-obvious behavioral facts beyond that: returned turns are truncated, the newest turns are returned, and conversation_id is stripped from the payload — all of which affect how an agent should interpret results.

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?

Two short sentences: purpose and scope first, then the caveat and the alternative. Every sentence carries information the agent cannot get from schema or annotations, with zero 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-value structure need not be explained, but the description correctly flags the two things the schema will not show the agent: truncation and the missing conversation_id. Only remaining gap is that neither ordering nor what happens when fewer turns exist is stated.

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 limit (1-50, default 20) and notebook_id (obtain via list_notebooks) documented in the schema itself. The description only loosely implies recency ordering via 'más recientes' and adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (chat history of a notebook) and specifies the shape of what is returned: recent turns of (question, answer). It is clearly distinct from ask_notebook, though it names that sibling only as a source for conversation_id rather than contrasting the tools' purposes directly.

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?

Explicitly redirects the agent: the turns come without conversation_id, so to re-ask with context the agent must use the conversation_id returned by ask_notebook. This is genuine routing guidance. There is no explicit statement of when NOT to call this tool (e.g., for full-text history before a given turn), keeping it below 5.

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