xchat_get_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it warns about returning PRIVATE decrypted message text from your own machine and explicitly states that reading does NOT mark the conversation read on X. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth needs, but for a simple read tool this is sufficient.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a critical privacy note, a return format section, and an args list. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition of schema information already present.

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 (2 params, no annotations) and the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, output format (oldest-first messages with fields), parameter source and constraints, and behavioral notes. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, but the description compensates fully. conversation_id is explained as coming from xchat_list_conversations, and limit is given with range (1-500) and default (50), plus the semantic 'most recent kept'. This goes well beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states 'Read messages from one XChat (encrypted DM) conversation', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like xchat_list_conversations (lists conversations) and get_dm_history (likely regular DMs) by specifying the XChat encrypted DM context.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool and directs the user to get conversation_id from xchat_list_conversations. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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