Get Chat History

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does reveal important traits: messages come newest-first, pagination is not supported, and the gateway default count is 100. This goes beyond a generic 'get history' statement, though it stops short of describing response shape or error cases.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the most important fact (recent messages newest first) and then the key constraint. No filler or repetition.

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 read tool with only two parameters, the description is largely complete: it covers ordering, pagination limitation, and a default behavior. The clear gap is chat_id semantics and the absence of any return structure, but the core call decisions are adequately supported.

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 meaningfully explains count via the no-pagination note and gateway default of 100, but chat_id is not described at all beyond its name, leaving the required parameter's format and semantics undocumented.

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 resource (chat messages) and operation (reading correspondence), with 'Последние сообщения чата' specifying what is returned. It identifies itself as the 'main tool for reading correspondence,' giving some differentiation from the more targeted sibling tools, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 gives practical usage context: 'Основной инструмент чтения переписки' tells an agent when to prefer this tool for general chat history reading, and 'Постраничного обхода у GREEN-API нет' clarifies that count is the only way to control volume. However, it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like get_last_incoming_messages.

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