openclaw_chat_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and adds critical behavioral details: 'Read-only', 'Wire format (verified live)', and rejection of old parameter fields. This alerts the agent to strict parameter validation and safety, though output format is omitted.

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?

Three sentences: first states purpose, second explains wire format, third warns about deprecated fields. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and structure front-loads the core purpose.

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 simple fetch tool with 3 parameters, the description covers essential constraints but lacks detail about return format or pagination (no output schema). It is adequate for basic use but leaves gaps in expected results.

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 covers 67% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds a mention that sessionKey is 'Composite session key from openclaw_sessions_list' and that old fields are rejected, but does not elaborate on limit's meaning or instance's behavior beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 due to high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states 'Fetch chat history for a session' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'Wraps chat.history' and rejecting pre-0.5.x fields, ensuring the agent knows this is the standard way to retrieve history.

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?

Description implies usage by stating required and accepted parameters, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like openclaw_chat_send or openclaw_chat_abort. The context is clear but exclusions are not stated.

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