Get Async Result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says it gets status and tails logs, without mentioning what happens for invalid session IDs, whether it returns immediately or waits, or what the status response contains. It does not disclose any side effects or permission requirements, leaving the agent to infer the tool's behavior.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get async command status') and appends the optional log tailing. Every word is functional, with no redundancy or filler. It is both 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a basic functional overview. However, it lacks critical contextual details such as return value structure, error handling, and required session_id semantics. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps that could confuse an agent deciding if this tool meets its needs.

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 must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains that 'lines' is used to tail the last N lines from logs, which adds meaning beyond the schema's integer type. However, it does not explicitly describe the 'session_id' parameter, though 'async command status' implies its role. The description partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Get async command status; optionally tail last N lines from logs' clearly identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('async command status' and 'logs'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like grep-result by focusing on status retrieval and log tailing rather than searching.

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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer another tool such as exec-async or grep-result. Usage context is only implied by the phrase 'async command status'.

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