get_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it 'views' history, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on whether it affects state, requires authentication, or has side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two lines with the purpose front-loaded. Every word is useful, and there is no redundant information.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter meaning. However, it does not describe the return format or any additional behavior, which could be important for an agent. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden, but some context is still missing.

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%, so the description's parameter explanation is crucial. It clearly defines 'limit' as returning the number of recent records, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's type and default.

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's purpose: viewing recent command execution history for debugging. The verb '查看' (view) and resource '命令执行历史' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like measurement tools or command-listing tools.

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 mentions 'for debugging' as a usage context, which provides some guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'list_learned_commands').

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