get_command_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't say whether the status is a snapshot or blocking, whether it requires prior delivery, what states are possible, or the return format. Only the minimal 'status query' behavior is implied.

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 two-language one-liner is brief and front-loaded, but it's under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It wastes no words but also conveys almost no information.

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 2-parameter required tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain what request_id refers to and what 'status' returns. It leaves too much for the agent to guess.

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 adds nothing about robot_sn or request_id – no format, source, or relationship between them. An undocumented request_id is especially problematic since the agent has no way to know where it comes from.

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 states a verb+resource ('Get command delivery status'), which is clear enough in isolation. But it doesn't differentiate from siblings like wait_for_command or list_command_history, and no scope details distinguish it from those command-related tools.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, no mention of when this is preferable to wait_for_command or list_command_history. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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