get_command_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: this returns output sizes only, not the content. It says nothing about read-only nature, behavior for unknown/expired ids, or whether status is a live poll, leaving meaningful gaps for a polling 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the disambiguation placed immediately after the purpose, and zero wasted words. Everything the reader needs to orient is in the first clause.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, one undocumented parameter, so the description must cover return values and does so only partially via 'output sizes only'. What a status actually looks like (running, done, failed) and the fields returned remain unstated.

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 coverage is 0% and the lone 'id' parameter is undocumented, but the phrase 'a command started earlier' implies the id is the handle returned by execute_command/execute_command_async. That is useful added meaning, though the description never states the id's origin or format explicitly.

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 resource and action: status lookup for a previously started command, and explicitly contrasts with get_command_output. It stops short of naming the status values returned or the shape of the payload, so the agent knows the category but not the content.

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 parenthetical 'use get_command_output for content' is an explicit routing rule to a sibling for the most likely confusion case. It gives no guidance versus wait_for_command, which is the other plausible alternative when polling for completion.

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