wait_for_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it only discloses that the call blocks until completion. It does not say what happens on timeout (a real risk given timeoutMs, which has a 600000 ms maximum), whether a timeout raises an error or returns partial status, or how this differs behaviorally from polling.

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 with the blocking action and contains no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

For a blocking operation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, this description is too thin. It should at minimum explain the id's referent and what a timeout returns, since nothing else in the definition does.

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 compensate, and it does not. 'id' is never explained as a command identifier, and timeoutMs is not mentioned at all, leaving the agent to infer both the meaning of the id and the timeout's effect from the bare schema types and defaults.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: wait for an async command to finish and return its result. It implies a blocking wait, which is distinct from the polling implied by siblings such as get_command_status and get_command_output, but it never names or differentiates itself from those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'async command' hints that this follows execute_command_async, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance. Nothing says whether to prefer this blocking call or the get_command_status/get_command_output polling siblings, and no conditions or prerequisites are stated.

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