get_command_status

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't explicitly state it's non-destructive or explain polling behavior or error conditions. It adds the fact that it returns output, but minimal extra context beyond the name.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a clear Args section. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is adequate: it states what the tool does and where the parameter comes from. It doesn't explicitly detail polling behavior or when the command completes, but the output schema likely covers return values, making it sufficiently complete.

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 description explains that the command_id is the one returned by execute_command_async, which adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare type definition. With schema coverage at 0%, this description fully compensates, making the parameter's purpose and origin clear.

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 retrieves the status and output of an async command, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on async commands and explicitly mentioning the command ID source, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage after execute_command_async by specifying that the command_id comes from that tool. This gives clear context, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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