mfuns_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (get browsing history) but does not mention whether it is read-only, requires authentication, returns data in chronological order, or any rate limits. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 compact, with the main purpose front-loaded and the parameter details following in a structured Args block. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no wasted wording.

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 simple tool with only two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics. However, it lacks behavioral context such as whether the history is user-specific, how ordering works, or if there are prerequisites. Overall, it is sufficient but not fully complete.

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 input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: resource_type (with valid values article/video and default behavior) and limit (with default 50). This adds meaning beyond the raw 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 tool retrieves browsing history and explicitly explains its purpose ('了解自己看过什么，避免重复互动'). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like mfuns_browse or mfuns_read_feed.

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 purpose phrase implies when to use it (when checking past viewed content to avoid duplicate interaction), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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