Device Command Job Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations lack: a bounded failure excerpt is included automatically and running logs are omitted by default, telling the agent what to expect from the payload.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the dual capability and then the payload behavior. Every clause earns its place.

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 7-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the two modes and the log/failure-excerpt return behavior, which is the key thing an agent needs. It stops short of describing pagination or revision semantics, but nothing critical is missing.

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 86%, so parameters like lines, job_id, verbose, and wait_seconds are already documented in the schema. The description restates the failure-excerpt/log behavior rather than adding new parameter-level syntax or format detail, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List detached device command jobs or read one job's status') and clearly identifies the two operating modes. It distinguishes itself from the command lifecycle siblings by linking to sailfish_device_command_start, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to use for cancellation.

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 listing versus single-job modes are implied by 'Omit to list recent jobs' in the job_id parameter, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use framing such as polling a started job or choosing this over sailfish_device_command_cancel. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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