Read a Claude history session

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses multiple behavioral traits: reads messages (read operation), supports pagination via offset/limit, truncation via maxChars, and source filtering. It does not mention side effects or return format, but for a read-only tool these are acceptable. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers key usage (source of IDs, pagination) but lacks details on return format, error handling, or session not found behavior. Completeness is adequate but not exceptional.

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 already has descriptions for 4 of 5 parameters (80% coverage). Description adds context about pagination but does not detail all parameters beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate; description adds minimal extra meaning.

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?

Description clearly states 'Read the messages of a single conversation session by ID', specifying the verb ('Read'), resource ('messages of a single conversation session'), and source of IDs (list_sessions or search_history). It distinguishes from sibling tools: list_sessions returns sessions, search_history searches, get_session reads a specific session's messages.

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?

Explicitly says to use after obtaining session ID from list_sessions or search_history, and mentions pagination for long sessions. Sibling tools are listed, providing context for when not to use this tool. Could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use, but adequate.

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