reflect_get_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('get') without detailing traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotations, this minimal description fails to provide essential behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence ('获取历史反思记录') that directly states the purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. There's no fluff, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 complexity of a tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and what the return values might include (e.g., list of records, format). For a tool in a server with multiple reflection-related siblings, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('limit' and 'projectId'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or their impact on results. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 '获取历史反思记录' (Get historical reflection records) clearly states the verb (get) and resource (historical reflection records), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'reflect_create' or 'reflect_update_progress' that also deal with reflection records, making it vague about its specific role within the reflection domain.

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 alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it's for viewing past reflections versus creating new ones (as with 'reflect_create') or updating them (as with 'reflect_update_progress'). This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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