get_conversation_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get the message history,' implying a read operation but offering no details about pagination, ordering, default page size, or what is returned (e.g., metadata vs. full messages). It does not mention that the history is paginated or that pageSize has a default of 50, which are non-obvious behaviors. This is a significant gap for an agent invoking the tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently states the tool's purpose. However, it lacks additional useful guidance (such as alternatives or scope restrictions) that would make it earn a 5, but it is appropriately concise for a simple read operation.

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?

The tool is simple but has no annotations or output schema. The description does not explain the return format, message ordering, pagination behavior, or any constraints (e.g., maximum pageSize). Given that the agent must invoke this correctly, the absence of such information makes the description incomplete. Sibling tools provide some context, but the description itself lacks sufficient operational detail.

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 100%, with each parameter (conversationId, page, pageSize) having a clear description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides—it does not, for instance, explain how page and pageSize interact or that pageSize has a maximum. Therefore, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('message history for a specific conversation'), clearly identifying the tool's function. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_conversations (which lists conversations) and send_message (which sends messages). The addition of 'in DreamingAI' provides context but is unnecessary; the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_conversations should be used to find conversation IDs, nor does it indicate any prerequisites (e.g., conversation must exist). The description simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema and sibling names.

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