get_image_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a list ('Get the list'), which suggests a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm it has no side effects, or describe output details or limitations. The behavior is basic but adequately conveyed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the essential purpose in eleven words.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough information: it tells the user what the tool returns (a list of images) and the scope (session). No significant gaps are present.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the only parameter (conversation_id), and the description does not add any new details about format or semantics beyond confirming it is session-based. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'list of generated/edited images in a session'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gemini_generate_image or gemini_edit_image.

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 phrase 'for reference' implies a use case of retrieving past images, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over others or mention alternatives/exclusions. The usage context is only implied.

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