get_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only: this does not mark anything as read.' This adds context about a specific side effect (not marking read) beyond the annotation. No contradictions.

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, each adding value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and key behavioral note. No extraneous words.

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 has no output schema, the description could elaborate on what is returned (e.g., message objects). The limit parameter implies pagination but is not explained. The description is adequate for a simple read tool but leaves some gaps for an agent without additional 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?

The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema for the two parameters. Schema description coverage is 50% (chat has description, limit does not), but the description doesn't explain the limit parameter or its default. For a tool with moderate schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 'Read' and the resource 'most recent messages of a chat, newest first'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_message and mark_read by declaring read-only behavior and clarifying it does not mark messages as read.

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 implies when to use (need chat history) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternative tools. Sibling tools like search_messages or list_chats could be relevant but are not mentioned.

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