chat_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only provides the return format, omitting any mention of read-only semantics, authentication requirements, pagination, or potential error conditions. It does not contradict annotations (none exist), but leaves key behavioral aspects unspecified.

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, compact sentence that immediately conveys the return structure. There is no fluff or redundant wording; every token serves a purpose, making it highly efficient.

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 description gives the return format explicitly, which covers what the tool outputs. However, with many sibling tools and no usage guidance, plus a single parameter whose meaning is only implicit, the definition lacks sufficient context for an agent to confidently invoke it in the right scenario.

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 explain the parameter, but it does not mention chat_session_id at all. The schema only gives type 'integer' and a title, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's role from the tool name and context.

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 phrase 'Message-level history of a chat' clearly indicates the tool returns the message-level history, and the appended array shape clarifies the return format. This distinguishes it from chat_list (session-level list) and chat_poll (new messages), though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve'.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like chat_poll or chat_list. It does not state whether it returns all history or only new messages, nor does it mention alternatives for filtering or incremental updates.

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