xhs_get_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb '获取' and the phrase '历史记录' imply a read-only retrieval with no side effects, and '最近' adds a recency constraint. However, it does not describe the result format, pagination, or ordering behavior.

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 sentence with no filler words. It is concise, front-loaded, and appropriate for a simple retrieval tool.

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 tool with only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. Still, it does not explain what fields a history record contains or how records are ordered, which an agent might need when processing the return value.

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 schema fully documents the 'limit' parameter with its description and default, so the description adds little parameter-level value. Baseline 3 is appropriate because schema coverage is 100%.

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 states a specific verb ('获取') and a specific resource ('封面生成历史记录'), making the tool's purpose clear. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings xhs_generate_cover (generation) and xhs_get_credits (credits), but it does not explicitly name these alternatives.

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 the tool should be used when someone needs recent cover generation history, but it does not state when to prefer this over the sibling tools or any exclusions. Usage context is present, though implicit.

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