get_interaction_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' implies a non-destructive read, but it does not disclose requirements like session_id (though in schema), pagination behavior, error outcomes, or any side effects. The description is too thin to inform the agent about the tool's operational characteristics.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, which is structurally concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema, making the brevity less a strength and more a gap in information.

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 absence of an output schema and the presence of several similar sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, ordering, pagination, or how it differs from tools like retrieve_session_context or get_recent_activity. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to use the tool 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (session_id, limit, since), so the schema itself provides adequate semantic meaning. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Retrieve conversation history' uses a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (conversation history), clearly indicating a read operation for historical conversation data. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like retrieve_session_context, which also deals with session-related data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as retrieve_session_context or get_recent_activity. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess the tool's intended role.

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