ssh_history

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it opens no SSH connection, is read-only, retains data only for the current process, and does not expose command output. This goes well beyond a basic function statement and gives the agent a precise safety and side-effect profile.

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?

Front-loaded with the core function, then adds behavioral caveats and filter semantics in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording or fluff.

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 read-only lookup with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what is returned (timestamps, server, duration, success status), what is excluded (command output), and the current-session limitation. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that filters 'narrow the results', that 'search' targets substring in command text, and that 'limit' defaults to the 20 most recent entries. This is extra value beyond the schema's terse field 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?

States the exact action ('Returns the in-memory log of SSH commands') with a specific resource and scope ('through this server process during the current session'). The read-only, local nature and explicit disambiguation from execution tools clearly distinguish it from siblings like ssh_execute or ssh_session_list.

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?

Provides clear context that this is for reviewing commands from the current in-memory session only, and explicitly notes it does not persist across restarts. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the unique purpose makes usage obvious.

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