ssh_history

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

The description indicates a read-only, persistent log query via 'Query' and 'Returns', and it notes the data is kept for traceability. With no annotations provided, it could additionally mention ordering, default scope, or return structure, but the basic non-mutating behavior is clear.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant phrasing. The core query behavior and the practical purpose are stated directly and efficiently.

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 simple read-only log query, the description plus the fully documented schema provide enough information to understand what the tool does and what parameters control it. The main missing piece is explicit guidance on how this differs from ssh_logs and what the returned entries look like, since there is no output schema.

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 input schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions, defaults, and an enum, so the description does not need to add much. It adds no additional parameter context, but the 100% schema coverage makes a baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('persistent operation log'), names the operation types returned, and states the traceability purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling ssh_logs, but 'persistent operation log' and 'past SSH operations' make the scope reasonably clear.

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?

The description gives a clear use case: reviewing what was done on a server for traceability. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus ssh_logs or ssh_status, nor does it mention any exclusions or preferred scenarios.

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