list_command_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: no pagination behavior for the defaulted page/pagesize, no semantics of cmd_status/command_type filters, no return shape, and no permission requirements. A read-only listing tool with zero behavioral context is inadequate.

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?

It is short with no rambling, and the verb+resource leads the sentence, but the bilingual duplication ('查询命令历史 / List command history') repeats identical content rather than adding either brevity or information.

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 five parameters, one required, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation anywhere, this description is far too thin for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It omits filtering, pagination, and result-format information entirely.

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% across all five parameters, including the required robot_sn, and the description supplies no parameter meaning whatsoever. Nothing tells the agent what cmd_status values are valid or how pagination defaults behave.

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 'List command history' is a literal restatement of the tool name list_command_history, with no additional scoping, resource detail, or distinction from siblings such as get_command_status. It identifies a verb and a resource only by echoing the identifier itself.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the clearly related siblings get_command_status or wait_for_command, and no mention of preconditions such as needing a valid robot serial number. The agent must infer all routing decisions from the name alone.

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