history

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

Describes that it tracks last 100 commands with exit codes and timing, which is transparent. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does not mention side effects, but none are expected for a history tool. Could explicitly state it is read-only.

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?

Extremely concise: four short lines covering purpose, behavior, parameters, and returns. No unnecessary text, front-loaded with 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no required) and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. Could mention that it is read-only for extra safety clarity.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description explains both parameters: limit (number of recent commands, default 20) and sandbox (named sandbox, default 'default'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/default only.

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?

Clearly states it shows recent command history for a sandbox, and mentions tracking last 100 commands with exit codes and timing. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'logs' or 'stats'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'logs' or 'stats'. Usage is implied for checking command history, but no when-not-to-use or comparisons.

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