ssh_cmd_clear_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a genuinely non-obvious nuance (finished long-running operations are removed, still-running ones survive so they can be polled), which is valuable. However, it omits irreversibility of the clear, any permission requirements, and confirmation behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the scope caveat immediately following. The 'Returns' line is slightly redundant given the tool has an output schema, but it is brief and does no real harm.

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?

The scope caveat is well handled and the presence of an output schema means return values need not be elaborated. For a zero-parameter, no-annotation tool, this is nearly complete; only the lack of any usage routing against sibling history/command tools leaves a small gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level detail is required or missing.

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 a specific verb ('Clear') and resource ('command history for the current SSH connection'), which distinguishes it cleanly from the viewing sibling ssh_cmd_history. It does not name that sibling, so it stops short of explicit differentiation, but the verb plus the clarifying parenthetical makes intent unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for wiping history, and the parenthetical hints at the interaction with running operations. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative such as ssh_cmd_history or ssh_cmd_kill.

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