bili_dm_history

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

With no annotations, the description does useful work by disclosing that it is read-only ('Does not reply/mark read'), caps pages at 30, and uses a native sequence cursor. It omits important behavioral context such as authentication requirements, ordering direction, rate limits, and whether begin_seqno is inclusive/exclusive.

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 three compact sentences and front-loads the core purpose. Each sentence contributes something, though the ID-type sentence mixes input and output concerns and is partly redundant with the schema.

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 three-parameter read tool with an output schema, the definition covers purpose, page limit, cursor, side effects, and ID return type. It remains incomplete about authentication, result ordering, and pagination direction, which are relevant for reliably calling a history endpoint.

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 carry parameter meaning. It adds 'max 30' for limit and calls begin_seqno a 'native sequence cursor,' but the ID type details largely restate what the anyOf schema already encodes, and it never explains talker_uid's role, cursor direction, or pagination mechanics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read one private-chat message page (max 30) with native sequence cursor.' This clearly distinguishes it from bili_dm_send and bili_dm_unread, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by 'history' and 'Does not reply/mark read,' which signals a read-only context. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus bili_dm_sessions or bili_dm_unread, nor does it explain how to obtain talker_uid or how to paginate with begin_seqno.

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