get_command_status

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

No annotations provided and description lacks details on behavioral traits such as idempotency, error handling, or polling behavior. The brief description does not compensate for the missing annotations.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the key action. However, it may be too brief given the context of sibling tools and lack of behavioral details.

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?

Fails to differentiate from enhanced version (get_command_status_enhanced) and does not describe what the output schema contains. The tool's role in the async command lifecycle is not fully specified.

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 description does not explain the command_id parameter. With only one parameter, the description should elaborate on its purpose to add value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves status and output of an async command. It specifies the resource (async command) and action (get), but does not explicitly distinguish from similar sibling tools like get_command_status_enhanced.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_command_status_enhanced or list_running_commands. The context usage is implied but not explicit.

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