get_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. Beyond the word 'Get', it does not state what 'full details' contains, what response format to expect, whether authentication is required, or any side effects. This is too thin for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single sentence with no filler and is front-loaded with the action 'Get full details'. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of important contextual 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, five parameters, and a large sibling list, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'full details' means, how requestId is used, or how this tool relates to list_commands and other request-focused siblings.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds little parameter meaning, but it does contextually link the tool to command execution, which helps clarify the role of requestId.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and names the resource 'full details of an Artisan command execution', making the basic purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_request or list_commands, but the Artisan command focus provides reasonable distinction.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many siblings such as list_commands, get_request, and search_requests, there are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose correctly.

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