chat_history_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, return format (resolved file path + list of entries newest last), explains that entries are large, warns that rotation invalidates refs, and details how parameters combine. This is comprehensive transparency.

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 three sentences—front-loaded with action and location, then use case, then read-only and return summary. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the return format sufficiently. It covers how parameters interact, the difference between index and full modes, and the behavior of 'around' with depth. For a complex read tool with 8 parameters, this is 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 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining usage strategies (e.g., 'scan first, then re-read...'), noting that history entries are large, and clarifying that 'last' applies after other filters. This additional context justifies a higher score.

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 tool reads recent entries from a chat-history JSONL file, specifying the file paths. It uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on reading vs. writing (chat_history_append exists).

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 explicitly says 'Use to recover context from an earlier session...', providing a clear when-to-use. It also states 'Read-only', which implies when not to use (for writing). It doesn't name alternatives explicitly but context with sibling tools makes it clear.

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