Get command history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what 'Retrieves' implies—no mention of data source, pagination, cache behavior, or failure modes. With annotations present, the description should add some context, but it does not.

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 short but opens with 'Get command history,' which merely repeats the title. The second sentence adds the 'specific host' detail. The redundancy is not harmful, but the first sentence earns no place, making it slightly less tight than it could be.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not clarify whether 'command history' refers to shell history on the host, Termix-managed command logs, or something else, and it does not distinguish this tool from termix_terminal_history_get_command_history. An agent lacks enough context to confidently select and invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 0% for hostId, so the description must compensate. It only says 'for a specific host,' which weakly implies hostId is the target host identifier, but it does not explain the semantics, format, or where to obtain a valid hostId. This is minimal compensation for an undocumented parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieves') and a resource ('command history for a specific host'), which is clear and actionable. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the sibling termix_terminal_history_get_command_history, but the qualifier 'for a specific host' provides enough differentiation for most agents.

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 given about when to use this tool versus the closely related termix_terminal_history_get_command_history or other history-related tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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