history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. '查看' makes clear this is a read operation, and '最近' implies recency ordering, but the description does not disclose whether results are sorted, how the limit applies, or what happens when there are no records. Basic behavior is transparent, but details are left out.

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 that states the tool's purpose with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool and every word contributes meaning.

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 tool is simple, has one optional parameter, and an output schema exists, so return details do not need explanation. Still, the description fails to explain the `limit` parameter and gives no explicit usage guidance beyond the obvious purpose, leaving minor but real gaps.

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 single `limit` parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the tool description. The name and default value are self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about how the limit is applied or what range of values is acceptable.

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 a specific verb ('查看' = view) and a concrete resource ('最近喝茶记录' = recent tea-drinking records), making it clear this is a read-oriented history tool. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like `record` or `inventory`, which imply writing or current stock rather than past records.

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 context for use is implied: call it when you need to see recent tea-drinking logs. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so an agent must infer the boundary against siblings like `record` or `review`.

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