ae_get_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: this is a non-re-executing read of an existing command's output. It says nothing about behavior when the command is still unfinished, when commandId is invalid, or whether repeated polling calls are safe/expected, so key behavioral questions remain unanswered.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the key behavioral caveat. Zero filler; every clause earns its place.

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 2-parameter tool this is close, but with no output schema the description should say something about the returned result (payload shape, or how 'not ready yet' appears), and it is silent on that. It is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the response and failure modes.

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 50%: waitMs is fully described in the schema, but commandId has no description anywhere. The description implies commandId refers to a previously timed-out command, but adds no format, sourcing, or relationship details (e.g. how waitMs interacts with polling) beyond that implication.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource ('Fetch the result of a command') and pins the exact scenario ('still running when its tool call timed out'), which no sibling tool covers. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative (e.g. re-invoking ae_run_jsx), relying instead on the implicit 'never re-sends' contrast.

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 trigger condition is stated clearly: use this after a command's tool call timed out while still running. 'Never re-sends the command' also implies the negative case (don't re-run to get the result), but no alternative tool is named and no edge cases (unknown commandId, very old results) are addressed.

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