chatgpt_search_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states the UI mechanism (web search-chat interface) and the key behavior of bypassing sidebar loading limits, and it implies a read-only search. However, it does not mention whether a live browser session is required, potential UI side effects, or behavior when there are no results.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the mechanism and scope, then immediately gives the return fields. Every part contributes useful information.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, mechanism, the key limitation-bypassing behavior, and return values. It lacks explicit alternate-sibling routing and parameter semantics, but the schema handles parameter constraints and the description is otherwise 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%, and the description does little to explain the parameters. 'query' is only inferable from the search action, and 'limit' is not described at all despite having default/min/max constraints. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 specific action and resource: '查找历史对话' (search historical conversations) via ChatGPT's built-in search-chat UI. It also differentiates itself from sidebar-based siblings by noting it is '不受侧栏当前加载数量限制' (not limited by the sidebar's currently loaded count) and specifies the returned fields.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when searching the full history because the sidebar's loaded history is limited. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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