get_output

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it only reads the existing output buffer, never sends commands to CDB, and gives exact JSON return formats for pending and idle states. This goes beyond basic expectations.

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 well-structured with clear sections, code blocks, and a numbered usage flow. Every sentence contributes value, and the length is justified by the detailed examples and behavioral disclosures.

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?

The description provides rich context for how to use the tool, its behavior, and expected outputs. However, it omits any explanation of the session_id parameter or how the 'current command' is determined in a multi-session context, leaving a minor completeness gap.

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 schema has one optional parameter, session_id, but the description never mentions it, leaving its purpose and necessity ambiguous. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but does not, which is a clear gap.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as fetching output status and content for the current command, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing its role as a polling mechanism after execute() returns pending.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('after execute() returns pending') and provides a typical usage flow with numbered steps. It also clarifies it does not send commands to CDB, which helps avoid misuse.

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