command_history_query

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. It communicates that the tool is universal, supports pagination, search, analytics, and entry references, and that include_full_details toggles metadata vs. full details. However, it does not disclose the response shape (e.g., whether analytics results differ structurally), default pagination behavior, or how filters interact. The description mentions pagination but lacks details like defaults and limits, which is a moderate gap.

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 a single paragraph with a clear lead sentence, a capability list, and a routing instruction. It is front-loaded with the universal query role and avoids excessive length. The list of capabilities is concise, although it reads somewhat like a feature dump rather than a tight behavioral contract.

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 tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main capabilities and one routing hint, but remains incomplete. It does not specify return formats, defaults, or behavior for edge cases like combining analytics_type with query filters. Given the tool's complexity, a more complete description would add operational specifics.

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%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters. The description adds high-level grouping (pagination, search, analytics, entry references) that maps to the schema, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. A few parameters like analytics_type and include_full_details are mentioned in the description, but not with additional detail 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 states a specific verb ('query') and resource ('command history') and enumerates distinct capabilities (pagination, search, entry refs, analytics). It names one sibling it is not ('avoiding duplication with process_get_execution'), which helps differentiation. However, it does not systematically distinguish among the other sibling tools (e.g., list_execution_outputs, read_execution_output) beyond naming one alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for all command history operations' and warns against using it for entry references via execution_id to avoid duplication with process_get_execution. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and one key exclusion, but it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like list_execution_outputs or read_execution_output.

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