Read a long-running command job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses the incremental reading behavior and that it returns slices of output. It implies a read-only operation (status and output) without side effects, which is sufficient transparency for a non-destructive tool.

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 succinct sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every word adds value, no repetition or filler. The structure is ideal for quick comprehension.

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 output schema, the description should at least mention that nextOffset fields are included in the response to enable the incremental pattern. It says 'Return job status plus stdout/stderr slices' but omits the critical nextOffset fields. It is sufficient for basic use but lacks full completeness for a robust polling pattern.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the role of stdoutOffset and stderrOffset (from previous response's nextOffset fields), but does not explain maxBytes, which has a maximum of 5 MB. jobId is obvious from context, but the lack of explanation for maxBytes leaves ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool returns job status and stdout/stderr slices, distinguishing it from sibling tools like exec_start (starts jobs) and exec_cancel (cancels jobs). The verb 'Return' and the specific resource 'job status plus stdout/stderr slices' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides specific guidance on using stdoutOffset and stderrOffset for incremental reading, which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like exec (which might wait for completion) or exec_jobs (which lists jobs). It implies usage after starting a job but lacks explicit when-not instructions.

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