Shell status

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses that wait_seconds is an observation window rather than a timeout, that the call is fast and not queued so it never blocks other tools, and describes the output fields (running, exit_code, stdout_tail/stderr_tail). These are non-obvious behavioral traits that materially change how an agent polls.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then segmented into Use when / Avoid when / Speed / Output / Batch-safe lines. Every line carries distinct information with no repetition.

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 two-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: polling condition, timing semantics, non-blocking behavior, and return shape. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for wait_seconds by explaining the observation-window semantics and the 0..30 bound. run_id is only implied by 'after project_shell_run' and the 'no run_id' exclusion rather than described directly, so it falls just short of full coverage.

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 and resource: 'Check status + output of a running command,' which distinguishes it from project_shell_run (start) and project_shell_cancel (abort). An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger ('after project_shell_run; poll until running=false') and the exclusion ('no run_id available yet'). The sibling it pairs with is named, and the polling loop condition is spelled out.

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