ssh_history

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires certain permissions, or affects system state. The word 'View' implies a read operation, but no explicit confirmation is given.

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 extremely concise at 4 words, with no superfluous content. Every word is earned, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. For a simple tool, this level of brevity is appropriate.

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 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what constitutes 'history' (e.g., scope, retention), output format, or how parameters interact. The description lacks contextual depth needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, with all four parameters (limit, server, success, search) described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, thus meeting baseline 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 'View SSH command history' clearly states the verb (view) and resource (SSH command history). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh_session_list (active sessions) and ssh_alias (alias management), though it lacks scope specifics like 'for all servers or current user'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as ssh_session_list or ssh_execute. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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