command_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it discharges most of it: it discloses that returns contain exit codes and timestamps, that failure output is only present under the opt-in [capture] failure_output setting, and only for runs recorded by an agent hook or suv wrap — otherwise just the exit code. This is substantive beyond what the schema provides; it only omits any statement about read-only safety or pagination cost.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the return-value detail and the conditional failure-output caveat. The third sentence is dense and slightly wordy, but every clause carries real information about the capture precondition.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what comes back, and it does — previous runs, exit codes, timestamps, and the exact conditions under which failure output appears. An agent has what it needs to interpret results; only the read-only nature and pagination semantics are left to the schema.

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 100%, so limit, offset, detail, command and directory are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the notion that 'command' identifies a specific command to look up 'before,' with no additional format or matching detail (the prefix match lives in the schema). Baseline 3 applies.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource: checking whether one named command has run before and how those runs ended. That is clearly narrower than sibling search_commands or recent_commands, but the description never names a sibling or states the contrast explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied through the framing 'so you can see whether it usually succeeds' — a reasonable agent can infer this is a lookup-before-retry tool. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., search_commands) for the opposite case.

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