chat_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions chronological ordering, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, how it handles limits, or what happens if the chat_id is invalid. 'List' implies a read, but safety and edge-case behaviors are not disclosed.

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 one concise, front-loaded phrase: 'List messages in a chat (chronological).' Every word adds meaning, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide a bit more context about return values, pagination, or limit behavior. It is a minimum viable description but leaves gaps regarding what the caller should expect in response or how to control result size. It adequately covers the core purpose but is not fully complete.

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 for parameter meanings. The phrase 'in a chat' hints at the chat_id parameter, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter, its optionality, range, or default behavior. The description provides minimal additional semantic value beyond the 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 clearly states the tool lists messages within a chat, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('messages in a chat'). It also notes chronological ordering. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like 'list_history', though it does differentiate from 'list_chats' and 'read_message'.

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. It does not mention exclusions or provide context for choosing it over similar tools like 'search_messages' or 'get_thread'. The description simply states what it does without usage direction.

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