get_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly explains the ordering (newest first), pagination direction using before_id, and the from_user filter. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the semantics strongly imply a non-mutating retrieval.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core resource and ordering first, then explains the two nuanced parameters. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no filler 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?

The description covers the key behavioral semantics needed to call the tool correctly, and an output schema exists to handle return-value documentation. It lacks explicit alternative routing and read-only/side-effect language, but for a straightforward history retrieval tool it is largely 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 provide parameter meaning. It successfully explains the two non-obvious parameters: before_id as a pagination cursor into older messages, and from_user as a sender filter. The remaining parameters chat and limit are reasonably self-evident from their names and types.

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 states a clear action and resource: retrieving chat messages ('Сообщения чата') with a specific ordering ('новые первыми'). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_message (single message) and search_messages (search), though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 its use for reading chat history and explains pagination/filtering behavior, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over search_messages, get_message, or list_dialogs. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives.

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