get_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb '读取' conveys a read-only operation and '最近的' implies recency ordering, but the description does not disclose what records are included (messages, turns, tool calls), the response structure, or whether the call could have side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately concise for a simple read tool, though it is not exemplary because it omits useful contextual detail.

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-only tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the core purpose. However, it does not disambiguate from overlapping siblings like context and recall, and with no output schema, the exact content or format of the returned history is left undefined.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single limit parameter with a description and default value (5), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 '读取最近的对话记录' clearly states the tool's function: read recent conversation history. It uses a specific verb (读取) and resource (最近的对话记录), but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like recall or context, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as context or recall. No exclusions, preconditions, or alternative tool mentions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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