get_session_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the return format (fields like session_id, created_at, message_count, last_exchange) and parameters. However, it does not explicitly state side effects or idempotency; the name implies read-only but could be more explicit about no mutations.

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 short paragraphs: first defines purpose and output, second adds parameter details. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns (list of entries with specific fields) and when to call (at session start). With only 2 parameters (both explained) and no annotations needed for this read-like tool, it is contextually complete.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does: 'limit: number of most-recent sessions to return (default 10)' and 'repo_path: optional absolute path to the target repository.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's type information.

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 tool's action ('Return recent conversation session exchanges') and its purpose ('for context continuity'). It specifies the resource (conversation sessions) and differentiates from siblings like 'get_last_context' and 'get_session_brief' by detailing the output fields and usage scenario.

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 explicitly says 'Call at session start to resume context,' providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context of resuming continuity is sufficient.

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