ssh_history

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool shows a log; it does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only, what type of actions are logged, how far back the history goes, or whether the data is session-specific or persisted. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose with no filler. It contains exactly the essential information without superfluous detail, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 relatively simple—two optional parameters and no output schema. The one-sentence description gives a basic idea of the tool's purpose, but for a history/log tool it lacks useful contextual details such as ordering of results, whether the log covers all servers when 'server' is null, and what the output entries look like. It is minimally adequate but leaves room for improvement given it has no annotations or output schema to compensate.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention 'limit' or 'server' at all. While the parameter names are fairly self-explanatory and the schema provides defaults, the description adds no semantic detail about their behavior (e.g., how filtering by server works, whether limit is the most recent entries).

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 shows a journal/log of executed actions with servers, using a specific verb ('Показать') and resource ('журнал выполненных действий'). It also specifies the content scope ('что и когда делали с серверами'), which distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which are history/log-focused.

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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool (to review what actions were performed on servers), but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether a server must be selected or whether the history covers all servers.

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