get_command_line

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already discloses that this is a read-only operation. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the value comes from the OSC cache, implying it reflects cached rather than live statetools. However, it does not describe output formatting, cache freshness, or what happens when no command line is present.

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 one concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource and immediately states the data source.

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 zero-parameter, read-only getter with no output schema, the description provides the essential return content and source. It is slightly light on behavioral context such as cache dynamics or expected format, but given the tool's simplicity, it is substantially complete.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description accurately identifies the single return source, which is all an agent needs to know.

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 specific action ('Return') and resource ('current command line text') with the source ('OSC cache'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like eos_command or cue_go, which represent different operations.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and description imply a read-only retrieval of command-line text, there is no explicit context, exclusion, or mention of when another sibling would be more appropriate.

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