get_command_output

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether retrieval is idempotent or consumes the output, not what happens for an unknown or expired command_id, and not whether output is truncated. Only the read-oriented nature is implied by 'Retrieve'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is not padded, though it is terse enough that the missing detail reads as under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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-optional-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say what is returned (raw text vs structured, truncation) and how errors surface for an invalid or 'last' with no history. Those gaps keep it from being 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the command_id description already documents the 'last' sentinel, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (output of a previously executed command), which clearly places it in the post-execution retrieval lane rather than the execute_* family. It stops short of naming a sibling such as execute_with_auto_retrieve or list_recent_commands, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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 call this instead of execute_with_auto_retrieve, execute_with_streaming, or list_recent_commands. Nothing says whether prior output expires, whether retrieval is required after a plain execute_command, or what happens if no command has run.

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