recent_commands

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses the output fields and read-only nature of the action. It does not state ordering, retention limits, or maximum number of commands, but for a zero-parameter list command this is a minor 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 two sentences, places the main purpose first, and adds the usage context second. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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, zero-parameter listing tool, the description is largely complete: it specifies output fields, likely use cases, and the path to command_status for further lookup. The term 'recently' is somewhat vague, but it does not prevent an agent from invoking the tool correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context about the returned data but there are no parameter details needed.

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 ('List'), a specific resource ('recently executed MCP commands'), and enumerates the returned fields (id, timestamp, success, result message). It also differentiates itself from the sibling command_status by explicitly mentioning that the id can be used to look up with command_status.

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 clear use cases: checking what an earlier command actually did, and finding a command's id for command_status lookup. It names the relevant alternative tool (command_status), though it does not explicitly enumerate when not to use recent_commands.

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