get_command_history

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and mostly drops it. It discloses only that the result set can be narrowed to a single VM, leaving unstated the ordering of results, the recency window implied by "recent," the default behavior across all VMs, and any result cap.

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 phrase is front-loaded and free of filler, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — six words cannot cover ordering, scope defaults, and the undocumented limit parameter. It sits in an awkward middle ground between the terseness of a bare label and a usable definition.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a 50%-covered input schema, the description needed to carry substantial weight and does not. An agent knows it gets "recent commands" but not how many by default, in what order, whether history is host-wide or per-VM when vm is omitted, or how this differs from the other command-inspection tools.

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 50%: the vm parameter is documented in the schema as "VM name or UUID," while limit has only a default and maximum and no explanation anywhere. The description's "for one VM" merely restates the schema's vm field and does nothing to explain what limit controls or what happens when it is omitted, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Recent commands" identifies the resource being retrieved, and "optionally for one VM" hints at scope, so an agent can roughly tell this returns a command log rather than a single command's status. But it is a noun fragment with no verb, and it never distinguishes itself from near-siblings like get_command_status or get_command_output, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no naming of alternatives such as get_command_status or get_command_output. The only usage signal is the word "optionally," which implies the vm filter is not required, but nothing tells the agent when to prefer this tool over the other command-related siblings.

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