agent_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Read' indicates a non-mutating operation and 'this session has joined' is a scope constraint, but it omits details about pagination behavior, ordering, or whether any state is affected. 'Bounded' hints at limits but lacks specifics.

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, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the action. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 output schema covers return values, so that aspect is managed. However, the terse description fails to explain the sequence parameters and the precise meaning of 'bounded', leaving notable gaps for an otherwise straightforward read tool.

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 compensate. It only maps 'room' to conversation_id and 'bounded' to limit, but leaves after_sequence, before_sequence, and the meaning of limit undefined. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'bounded history for a room', making the tool's purpose explicit. It also specifies scope ('this session has joined'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like agent_send or agent_reply.

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 phrase 'for a room this session has joined' provides a clear precondition and context for use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like agent_participants, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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