get_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully explains the deterministic page behavior, direction ordering, chronological return, cursor usage, and termination condition (hasMore). No safety or side-effect warnings are needed since this is read-only, and the pagination contract is described in detail.

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 two sentences, immediately stating the core purpose, followed by essential pagination mechanics. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or filler content. Front-loaded and highly efficient.

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 paginated history tool with no output schema, the description covers the key usage contract: page ordering, direction, cursor, and termination. It does not describe the message object fields, but this is likely inferable from siblings like get_message and is secondary to the pagination mechanics. The description is contextually sufficient for an agent to use the tool 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?

The schema description covers only chatId (25%). The description compensates by explaining direction and cursor semantics explicitly ('forward reads oldest→newest', 'pass the cursor back to continue'), which are non-obvious parameters. It does not describe 'limit' but that is self-explanatory. Overall, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema for the critical parameters.

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 the tool reads a page of chat history with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('chat's message history'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_message by focusing on paginated history and explicitly describes direction semantics (forward/backward), which no other sibling covers.

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?

The description provides clear operational guidance: how to use direction and cursor, that messages are chronological, and to iterate until hasMore is false. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., get_message for single messages), but the sibling names and context make the distinction obvious. Strong usage instructions, but lacked explicit 'when-not-to-use'.

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