sys_cmdlog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Read-only' usefully signals no side effects, but the description does not state what the returned command history looks like or mention any access limitations. For a parameterless read-only command this is minimally adequate.

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 four words with no filler or redundancy. The read-only qualifier is placed immediately after the resource, making the key safety trait front and center.

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 the tool's low complexity—no parameters, no output schema, read-only behavior—the description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could be slightly more explicit about the expected output contents, but nothing essential is missing for basic invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema already contains nothing that could mislead. There is no parameter information for the description to add, giving it the baseline score for a parameterless tool.

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 identifies the resource ('command history') and signals that the operation is read-only. It is clear and distinctive enough in intent, though it is phrased as a noun rather than an explicit verb+resource statement and does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar inspection tools like log_tail or dpdk_cmdlog.

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 about when to use sys_cmdlog versus alternative history/log/status commands, nor any mention of typical diagnostic scenarios. The read-only nature weakly implies a safe query, but the description does not help an agent choose it over siblings.

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