subctx_counselor_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 explicitly discloses that the operation is read-only, does not consume inference, and does not mutate state. It also describes the content types (transcripts, diagnoses, directives), giving the agent a clear picture of what to expect. It could add more on failure modes or data retention, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose (read-only inspection), and then adds the behavioral guarantee (no inference, no mutation). Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool does, what it returns (transcripts, diagnoses, directives), and its non-destructive nature. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without additional guidance.

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% – the session_id parameter is already described as 'UUID of the counseling session to review'. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter (e.g., format, constraints, examples) beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 action (read-only inspection) and the resource (past 1x1 dialogue transcripts, human diagnoses, and cognitive directives in a counseling session). It also names the purpose (reviewing prior guidance) and distinguishes from siblings like subctx_counselor_converse by emphasizing the read-only nature.

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 for reviewing past guidance without mutating state, which is a clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools (e.g., subctx_counselor_converse for new dialogue). It provides a clear use case but no exclusions or direct comparisons.

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