query_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. '查看' implies a read-only operation and the scope is limited to the current account's own history, but it does not mention permissions, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The output schema exists, so return format need not be described.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then lists the two parameters efficiently. There is no redundant or filler text, and the argument structure is easy to parse.

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 two-parameter read/list tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose and both parameters sufficiently. It could be stronger with explicit usage routing against siblings or a note on permissions, but nothing critical for invocation is missing.

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 must compensate. It does: limit is described as the number of returned records and must be a positive integer, while search is described as filtering by SQL content, username, or alias. Both parameters gain meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: viewing the current Archery account's own online query history. It clearly separates this from query execution siblings like query and sql_check, but does not explicitly name or compare against those alternatives.

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 intended use is implied: retrieve the current account's query history. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of query, sql_check, or other siblings, nor any when-not conditions.

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