command_chains

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

The description starts with 'Read-only', matching annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It also discloses that it returns time-ordered sequences and uses a local index only, providing full behavioral transparency beyond annotations.

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 (4 sentences), front-loaded with 'Read-only', includes an example sequence and a practical use case. Every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but implied), the description need not detail return format. It covers behavior, use case, and limitations (local index), making it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds context like default window and purpose but doesn't significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema.

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 it returns command chains around a query match, surfacing multi-step sequences. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_history (which gives individual commands) and recent_in_dir (which shows recent 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?

It provides a clear use case: 'reconstructing how did I do X last time?'. While it doesn't explicitly exclude scenarios, the context of sibling tools implies when to use this vs. other search tools.

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