list_command_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the types of commands included (completed, failed, interrupted), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state the tool is read-only, mention sorting or ordering, or clarify whether the history is session-specific or global, leaving some ambiguity.

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 concise: a single sentence defining the purpose plus a brief Arg spec for the only parameter. Every word contributes value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 listing tool, the description covers the core functionality and the limit parameter. The presence of an output schema (indicated by context signals) likely covers return values. The main gap is the lack of session scope context, but overall the description is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 only provides the type and default for limit. The description adds meaning by explaining 'Maximum number of commands to return (default: 50)', which compensates for the schema's lack of description and helps the agent understand the parameter's purpose.

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 lists recent command history, specifying completed, failed, and interrupted commands. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_sessions and list_running_commands by focusing on past commands.

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 usage is implied through the description and tool name: the agent can infer this is for viewing past commands. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., list_running_commands for active commands) or any exclusions.

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