List Site Command History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's statement that this is an audit read and cannot run a command reinforces but does not substantially add beyond the annotations. No contradictions are present.

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 two sentences, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and key limitation. There is no extraneous content, and the important information is front-loaded.

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 has 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain pagination, response format, or how to interpret the history. For a simple list endpoint, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets but does not exceed expectations.

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 lists the history of commands run from a site's Commands panel, including who ran them and when. It also distinguishes itself by noting it is an audit read and cannot run a command, which helps differentiate from sibling tools like list_server_events or get_site.

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 specifies that this tool is for auditing purposes and not for running commands, providing clear context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools for running commands, leaving some guidance implicit.

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