bvoiz_get_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that results are account-scoped and limited to recent items, but says nothing about auth requirements beyond the api_key param, ordering, truncation behavior, or what a history entry contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves gaps rather than being a case of lean over-specification.

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 read-only list tool with fully documented parameters this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description could at least sketch what a history record contains (e.g. job id, audio URL, timestamp) so an agent knows what it can chain into bvoiz_download_audio.

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%, so both parameters (limit with default 10 / max 100, and api_key) are already fully documented. The description adds only the notion of recency, which implies ordering but not a format or paging detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Lấy danh sách') and resource ('lịch sử các lần tạo âm thanh') scoped to the account's most recent items. It is reasonably distinct from siblings like bvoiz_get_job_status or bvoiz_synthesize_speech, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'gần nhất' signals this is the tool for recent activity rather than a specific job or account lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer bvoiz_get_job_status for a specific job, and no prerequisites stated.

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