get_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive/idempotent traits, and the description still adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the 16 KiB JSON budget truncates only oldest page items and resumes without skipping, album groups appear as explicit placeholders, and HISTORY_NOT_LOADED means unconfirmed progress rather than end-of-history. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and tight throughout; every sentence carries information about paging, truncation, or error semantics. The density and jargon (e.g., 'next call (or legacy nextBefore)') strain readability slightly but nothing is padding.

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 read-only, annotation-backed tool with no output schema, the description covers paging, default/max limits, truncation behavior, and error-code meaning well. The main residual gap is the unexplained chat vs chatId relationship and permission requirements implied by 'allowed chat'.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It meaningfully explains limit (default 50, max 100) and before (omit for latest, follow next for older), but it never clarifies the difference between the two identifier parameters chat and chatId — a real ambiguity left undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read a history page ... of older rendered items from an allowed chat.' The 'older' framing implicitly contrasts with recent-message siblings, but it never names an alternative, so an agent can't fully disambiguate it from collect_messages or get_recent_messages without opening the schema.

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?

Provides solid pagination usage ('Omit before for latest page; follow the returned next call ... for the next exclusive older page'), which is genuinely actionable. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over collect_messages or get_recent_messages, and no explicit exclusions, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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