list_commands

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral context that it lists 'tracked' executions and is scoped to the 'current session', which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradictions detected.

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 concise sentence of 8 words, immediately stating the core action and scope. No redundant or irrelevant information is included.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter, and annotations plus an output schema exist. The description adequately conveys the basic purpose, but the lack of parameter detail leaves a gap in completeness. For a list tool, this is acceptable but not fully complete.

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 0%, and the parameter 'target' has no description in the schema. The description mentions 'current session' but does not explicitly explain that the 'target' parameter refers to the session or how to use it. This provides only a weak hint about the parameter's meaning.

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 'List tracked command executions in current session' clearly identifies the verb (List), the resource (tracked command executions), and the scope (current session). It distinguishes from siblings like list_sessions and list_windows by focusing on command executions.

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 phrase 'in current session' gives context about when this tool is appropriate, implying it is for the current session scope. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some room for ambiguity relative to tools like get_command_result or wait_command.

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