grove_get_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds 'Requires grove_read' (a permission hint) but does not describe additional behavioral aspects such as rate limits or error conditions beyond what annotations provide.

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 and well-structured: a short main sentence followed by three parameter explanations. No unnecessary verbosity, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has an output schema (though not shown), so return values need not be explained. The description covers the essential operation and parameters. Minor gaps include potential error scenarios, but these are not required given the simplicity and output schema presence.

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?

Each parameter is given a detailed, practical explanation. channel_name includes a pointer to find names via grove_list_channels, limit specifies max and default values, and since_id explains pagination logic explicitly. This far exceeds the bare schema types.

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 'message history from a Grove channel', distinguishing it from siblings like grove_list_channels and grove_search. It accurately reflects the tool's function.

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 mentions the required permission 'grove_read' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like grove_search or grove_get_thread. The use case is implied but not fully explicit.

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