get_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('获取历史消息') and mentions a parameter, but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's read-only or destructive, or what the output looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 very concise, consisting of a single sentence that states the purpose and parameter. It's front-loaded with the main function, and there's no wasted text, making it efficient. However, it could be slightly improved with more structure or clarity, but it's well within acceptable bounds.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for the agent to understand the tool's behavior, output, or how it fits among siblings, making it insufficient for effective use.

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 description adds some meaning by explaining the parameter 'n' as '获取数量，默认50' (meaning 'number to retrieve, default 50'), which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's type and default. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides basic but incomplete compensation, aligning with the baseline expectation.

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 ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('历史消息' meaning 'historical messages'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_messages' or 'get_next_new_message', which appear to handle similar message-related functions, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_messages' and 'get_next_new_message' present, there's no indication of how this tool differs in context or when it should be preferred, leaving the agent with insufficient usage information.

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