gadgets_command_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait: timed_out and unconfirmed states require human recovery rather than automated retry. However, it omits whether the call is read-only, whether polling is expected or the command may still be in flight, and what the other possible states are.

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?

One compact sentence with the read operation front-loaded and the recovery caveat second; no filler. It is slightly too terse and jargon-dependent to be fully self-explanatory, but every clause carries information.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented command_id, the description leaves key gaps: it does not say where command_id comes from, what fields the acknowledgement contains, or what the normal (non-error) success outcome looks like. The recovery note is the only substantive disclosure.

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 single parameter command_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing about it — not the expected format, nor that it is the identifier returned by gadgets_command. Since there is one undocumented required parameter, the description should have compensated and does not.

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 verb 'Read' plus the resource 'execution acknowledgement' communicates that this retrieves the result/status of a command, but 'execution acknowledgement' is jargon that only loosely maps to 'check the status of a previously submitted command'. It hints at a relationship with gadgets_command but never states it, so the agent must infer the distinction from siblings like gadgets_get_state and gadgets_read_events.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when this should be called relative to gadgets_command, and no alternative named. The clause about timed_out/unconfirmed describes outcome handling, not selection criteria for this tool over its siblings.

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