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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state idempotency, side effects, or data freshness. Since there are no annotations, the description lacks necessary behavioral clarity.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly improved by including a usage hint in the same concise manner.

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 no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for a simple retrieval tool. It states the action and the return type. It does not cover edge cases like empty history, but that is minor for this context.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema requires no description for parameters. Per guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 'Get' and resource 'formatted session history for the current active session'. It specifies that it returns a list of formatted history entries, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_current_state' (current state) and 'log' (logging). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other history-related tools.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'log' or 'get_current_state'. There are no instructions about prerequisites, limitations, or contextual cues for invoking 'history'. The description simply states what it does without any usage direction.

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