История чата

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: the bank returns one page, offset counts from the newest messages, truncation is always marked and reports full length, and the output names the next before_id when it reaches the edge of a page. This covers hidden behaviors an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations.

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 compact, well-structured, and every sentence adds practical information. The core purpose is stated first, followed by a clear breakdown of pagination parameters and the distinction between local scrolling and cursored page navigation. There is 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?

Given the tool's five parameters and complex pagination behavior, the description covers all important usage aspects: page boundaries, offset/limit semantics, before_id cursor, text truncation behavior, and ordering. The presence of an output schema also relieves the description of return-value details. No material gap remains for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 carries the full burden. It thoroughly explains limit, offset, max_chars, and before_id, including special values, counting direction, and cursor semantics. Only conversation_id is not explicitly annotated, but it is self-evident from the tool name and the required schema field.

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 identifies the resource as chat history with 'История чата, старые сверху', which an agent can understand and distinguish from sibling tools like messenger_send and messenger_conversations. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'fetch', so purpose is clear in context rather than stated directly.

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 explicit pagination guidance: limit and offset scroll within one bank page, while before_id loads an earlier page. It also directly warns that offset here is not the same as offset in messenger_conversations, which is exactly the kind of when/where/when-not guidance an agent needs.

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