get_chat_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 discloses fuzzy matching and date range filtering, which is useful. However, it does not mention return ordering, pagination, handling of system messages, or other behavioral traits, leaving notable gaps.

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 a single sentence with two clauses, efficiently covering the core function and key features. Every word contributes value, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description conveys the primary purpose and filtering capabilities, but lacks usage guidance and some behavioral details, making it minimally complete given the context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of fuzzy matching and date filtering duplicates what the schema already states for chat_name, start_date, and end_date, adding no extra semantic depth.

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 clearly states the verb '获取' (get) and resource '指定聊天的消息记录' (message records of a specified chat), which is specific. It also mentions fuzzy matching and date filtering, distinguishing it from siblings like get_recent_sessions or search_messages, though it does not explicitly name these alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as search_messages or get_recent_sessions. The description implies usage for retrieving a specific chat's history, but lacks explicit context for selection or exclusion.

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