fgui_get_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it reads two types of state, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety, side effects, error conditions, or what the returned data actually contains. More behavioral context would be valuable.

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 a single concise sentence that leads with the verb. No wasted words, and it is front-loaded with the action.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, this is mostly sufficient. However, it doesn't explicitly state that it is non-destructive or explain how it relates to the undo/redo workflow with siblings. Given the lack of annotations, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is effectively complete. The baseline of 4 for no parameters applies, and the description doesn't need to add parameter detail.

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 uses the specific verb '读取' (read) and clearly identifies the resources being read: the Agent property transaction stack and FairyGUI native undo state. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling undo/redo tools, the name and resource references make its purpose clear enough.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus fgui_undo/fgui_redo or other siblings. There are no alternatives, exclusions, or contextual triggers mentioned.

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