get_command_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly implies a read operation but lacks details on side effects, error handling (e.g., if command fails), or whether the call is idempotent. The existence of an output schema mitigates this somewhat.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, then a one-line argument description. Every word is necessary, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is adequate. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and the async nature. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Minor gap: no mention of what happens for invalid or expired command_id.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that 'command_id' comes from execute_command_async, which guides the agent on how to obtain it. This is clear and useful, though not exhaustive.

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 uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'status and output' of an async command, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like execute_command_async (which initiates) and list_running_commands (which lists without retrieving output).

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 states the command_id argument comes from execute_command_async, implying it is used after that tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases like polling vs. final output, nor mention alternatives like interrupt_command_by_id.

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