word_session_command_status

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

The description includes 'Read-only', which is a strong behavioral disclosure in the absence of annotations. However, it does not elaborate on behavior for invalid command IDs, timeouts, or return format details. The annotation burden is fully carried by the description, which only partially addresses it.

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 a single, concise sentence with no extraneous words. The key attribute 'Read-only' is front-loaded, aiding quick comprehension.

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 simple status retrieval with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, read-only nature, and return content (status/result/error). It could hint at where to obtain command_id, but is largely complete given the tool's low complexity.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions). The tool description mentions 'a queued Office.js session command' but does not clarify the format or expected values of command_id. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter name.

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 clearly states the tool returns status/result/error for a queued Office.js session command. It uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('status/result/error'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like word_session_list and word_session_apply_patchset.

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 implies usage after queuing a command, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., after word_session_apply_patchset). No guidance on prerequisites or error scenarios is provided.

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