get_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Get message history' but does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior with large limits. Given the lack of annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise—four short lines—and well-structured with clear 'Args:' listing. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters), the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be explained), and the minimal sibling context, the description is fairly complete. It could optionally mention that it retrieves messages from a bot conversation, but the current description is sufficient for basic use.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by providing examples for the 'bot' parameter ('e.g. '@BotFather' or 'BotFather'') and clarifying the default for 'limit' (20). With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well, though it could elaborate on the format or constraints of 'limit'.

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 verb and resource: 'Get message history with a Telegram bot.' This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'send_message', which sends messages. The purpose is specific and 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?

The description implicitly indicates when to use this tool (retrieve history) versus the sibling 'send_message' (send messages). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives beyond the sibling context. This is adequate for a simple list retrieval tool.

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