get_history_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'recent' history but doesn't define what 'recent' means (e.g., time range, recency criteria). It also omits details like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which are crucial for a read operation with filtering parameters.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by a structured parameter list. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's function, and the subsequent lines efficiently detail each parameter without redundancy. It's concise and well-organized for quick comprehension.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics effectively. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it lacks behavioral context (e.g., recency definition, error cases), which slightly reduces completeness.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'limit' as 'Max rows to return (default 20)', 'command' as 'Filter by command name (partial match)', and 'category' as 'Filter by category (exact match)'. This clarifies default values, filtering behaviors (partial vs. exact match), and semantics, fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Get recent command-usage history.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('command-usage history'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_stats_tool' or 'search_commands_tool', which likely serve related but distinct purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools such as 'search_commands_tool' or 'get_stats_tool', leaving the agent to infer usage context. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites, which is a significant gap.

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