get_command_output

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether output is buffered/retained after completion, what happens when offset exceeds the output length, whether reading is a blocking or point-in-time snapshot, or whether output can be truncated or expired.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, so it is not bloated. However, brevity here comes at the cost of substance: one short clause cannot carry the paging contract, and the near-total absence of detail reads as under-specification rather than concision.

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 zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, this tool's description is the only source of behavioral information available, and it provides a single clause. An agent cannot determine the paging protocol, stream selection defaults, or error conditions from it.

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%, and the description only implicitly covers two of the four parameters ('page' implies limit/offset, 'stdout or stderr' matches the stream enum). It never clarifies that 'id' is a command identifier, nor that limit is a byte count, which is the key fact given the 65536 default and 1 MiB cap.

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 'Page through' plus the resource 'a command's stdout or stderr' tells an agent exactly what the tool returns: a chunked read of a command's output stream. It is clear but does not name its siblings (get_command_status, wait_for_command, get_command_history) or explain how it differs from them, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 guidance on when to call this versus get_command_status or wait_for_command, no statement that the command must exist (or be finished) first, and no explanation of the paging loop (read, then advance offset until exhausted). The agent must derive the entire workflow from the word 'Page'.

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