list_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'fetch' which implies a read operation, but it does not reveal ordering, pagination behavior, whether replies are included, or any limits/constraints beyond the schema. This is a minimal description that leaves significant behavior 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 short sentence with no filler, and the main action and target are front-loaded. It earns its place in terms of brevity, though it sacrifices valuable detail for conciseness.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description is the only source of contextual information. It fails to explain what a successful response looks like, the ordering of returned messages, or any edge cases (e.g., time range behavior). For a tool with four parameters and no other structured context, this is incomplete.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, which is acceptable given the schema coverage, but it also provides no context about how limit, latest, and oldest interact in practice.

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 'Fetch message history from a Slack channel' clearly identifies the verb (fetch), resource (message history), and scope (from a Slack channel). It is unambiguous for basic understanding, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_messages or get_thread_replies.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for direct channel history retrieval, whereas search_messages is for searching, or get_thread_replies for thread-specific replies. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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