get_commandlog_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions version constraints, time range filtering support, and the note on unsupported instances, but lacks details on side effects (assumed read-only), pagination, or ordering behavior. This is moderate but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage context, and edge case handling. No redundant information, well-structured.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main functionality and an important constraint, but falls short on explaining return format, ordering, or the role of less common parameters (e.g., minDuration, instanceId). It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for time range filtering (linking to startTime/endTime) but does not provide additional semantics for other parameters beyond what the schema already offers.

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 the resource 'persisted COMMANDLOG entries', and adds a version constraint (Valkey 8+ only). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_commandlog', which could be confused as a live counterpart.

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 provides a usage context ('to investigate specific incidents') and mentions error handling for unsupported instances, but it does not specify when not to use the tool or suggest alternative sibling tools.

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