ssh_cmd_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return format (list of dicts with fields), ordering (oldest to newest by default), and the effect of include_output/output_lines. However, it omits potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 relatively concise (2 sentences plus a bullet list) and front-loaded. The bullet list of return fields is clear, though slightly verbose.

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 5 parameters and an output schema present, the description covers return format but does not mention necessary preconditions (e.g., active SSH connection) or limitations. Sibling tools indicate connection requirements are handled elsewhere.

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% (all 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context for the return format and interaction between include_output and output_lines, but does not add individual parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 retrieves command execution history with optional output snippets, distinguishing it from siblings like ssh_cmd_run or ssh_cmd_output that execute or show output for specific commands.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as ssh_cmd_check_status or ssh_cmd_output. Usage is implied by the name and description, but no when-not or prerequisite (e.g., connection required) is mentioned.

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