get_history_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and it does well by disclosing read-only semantics, required path prefixes, and sensitive-information masking. It references get_file for behavioral parity, which delegates some detail, but for a simple read operation this is sufficient.

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 its purpose and organized into Notes, Args, and Returns sections, making it easy to scan. The prefix rule is repeated three times, which is slightly redundant, but the overall structure is efficient and clear.

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 one-parameter, read-only file tool with an output schema, this description is complete: it covers path constraints, read-only behavior, sensitive-info masking, and return type. An agent has everything needed 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining the only parameter, path, as the historical snapshot file path and by repeating the required prefix constraint. It adds genuine meaning beyond the bare schema, though a concrete example would make it slightly stronger.

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 opens with a precise verb-object statement: '读取历史快照文件内容（只读）', meaning read historical snapshot file content in a read-only manner. It clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes itself from the general get_file by restricting paths to '/history' or '/data/history' and from listing-oriented siblings like list_history_entries.

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?

It gives an explicit usage condition: the path must start with '/history' or '/data/history', and it notes that behavior matches get_file. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives such as list_history_entries for enumeration, leaving the guidance clear but not fully contrastive.

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