get_session_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so no safety contradiction exists. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states that technical/tool-call messages are filtered out and only user/assistant interactions are returned, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether this tool fits the task.

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 only two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the primary function and resource, and the second clarifies the filtering behavior. It is concise, front-loaded, and free of filler or redundant restatements of the tool name.

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 one well-documented parameter and read-only/idempotent annotations, this description is complete. It specifies the exact resource, the session identifier concept, and the output filtering behavior. There is no output schema, but the description sufficiently explains what the caller will receive, and no critical calling context is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the session_id parameter is already described in the schema, including where the ID comes from. The description does not add extra parameter meaning, but it does use the phrase 'de uma conversa', which reinforces that session_id identifies a conversation. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Retorna') and resource ('o histórico de mensagens de uma conversa'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It further differentiates the tool by stating it filters tool-call messages and returns only user/assistant interactions, which separates it from raw trace or execution-history tools.

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 clearly implies this tool is meant for retrieving cleaned, user-facing conversation history for a given session. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it name any alternatives or exclusions, such as when a technical/raw history tool like get_execution_trace would be more appropriate.

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