tnd_get_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the bare purpose. It omits ordering (newest first?), whether results are paginated, what fields a record contains, and whether history is local or server-side.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words and the core purpose front-loaded. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only half the parameters documented, the description should explain the record shape, ordering, and pagination. As written, an agent cannot predict the response or how to page through large histories.

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?

Only the 'q' parameter is documented in the schema (50% coverage), and the description adds no meaning about matching behavior (substring vs exact, title vs ID) or the practical effect of 'limit'. The description does nothing to compensate for the uncovered parameter.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource ('读取下载历史记录'), so an agent knows it retrieves past download records. It does not distinguish this from adjacent siblings such as tnd_get_updates, tnd_get_library, or tnd_list_downloaded_chapters, leaving overlap ambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. With a sibling set containing several history/library/download-listing tools, an agent has no signal for choosing this one over tnd_get_updates or tnd_list_downloaded_chapters.

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