get_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only and discloses the return structure via the T6 notation ({id, date, sender, text}). This is useful context beyond the schema, though it omits error scenarios or authentication requirements.

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 succinct with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose first. Every phrase adds value: chat resolution format, the underlying method call, and the return shape. No unnecessary filler.

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 output schema exists and the tool is simple and read-only, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameter flexibility, and return values. However, it lacks usage guidance and error conditions, which slightly detracts from full completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'chat' parameter can be an id, username, link, or name, and that it resolves to an entity. 'limit' is mentioned in the T6 call, implying it controls the number of messages, though not explicitly defined.

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 retrieves recent chat messages, with a specific resource (chat) and verb implied by the name. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_in_chat and get_pinned by focusing on message history. The resolution detail for chat adds specificity.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description explains what the tool does but not the appropriate context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling list.

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