kernel_chat_history

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about ordering (chronological?), whether the read is safe and side-effect free, whether archived episodes are included, or how pagination behaves when limit/offset are omitted. 'Get' weakly implies a read, but that is the only behavioral signal present.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though the sentence is arguably thin enough to border on under-specification.

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?

This is a simple three-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, with no annotations, it should have disclosed ordering and read-safety behavior, which it omits.

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%, including the default for limit ('all') and the meaning of offset, so the structured fields already do the work. The description adds no extra meaning about how limit/offset interact or what values are reasonable, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get message history for a chat episode'), which is more informative than the bare name. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings that also return chat content, such as kernel_chat_message, kernel_chat_recall, or kernel_chat_search, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which one surfaces full episode history.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of when this is preferable to kernel_chat_search or kernel_chat_recall, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the required episode_id parameter.

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