gemini_chat_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention that it returns '全件' (all records), which indicates no pagination or filtering. It also implies a read-only operation by nature, but does not explicitly state side effects or error conditions. Some relevant behavioral context is missing, such as whether it requires an existing session or how it orders 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's function. No unnecessary words or redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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 simple with one parameter, and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. The description covers the core action (returning all history) and the input concept (session). It lacks explicit notes about prerequisites or error handling, but for a straightforward getter, it is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter 'label' is described as '対象 session の label'. The tool description refers to '指定 session' which aligns with the label parameter, but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The parameter semantics are adequately covered by the schema, so a 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 states a specific verb and resource: '返す' (return) the '会話履歴' (conversation history) for a given session. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like gemini_chat_list (which likely lists sessions) and gemini_chat_new/continue (which create or continue chats).

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 implies usage: when you have a specific session label and need its full history. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The intended context is clear from the tool name and description, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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