get_command_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the concept of 'tracked command execution' and the two modes ('poll status' vs 'fetch result'), which is useful context. However, it does not disclose details like whether incomplete commands return partial output or what errors occur for unknown command_ids. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is minimally adequate.

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 that front-loads the tool's action ('Poll status or fetch result') and object ('a tracked command execution'). Every word earns its place and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with one parameter, annotations, and an output schema (presumably describing return values), the description covers the core purpose well. It lacks usage guidelines and explicit parameter semantics, but these gaps are minor given the low complexity. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Overall, the description is reasonably complete but not fully satisfying.

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 a single parameter (command_id) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description mentions 'tracked command execution' but does not explicitly explain that command_id is the identifier returned from run_command. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema details, so it only partially clarifies the parameter's purpose.

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 verbs ('Poll status', 'fetch result') and identifies the resource ('a tracked command execution'). It is clear that this tool is for retrieving command execution results, distinguishing it from run_command (start) and wait_command (blocking wait). However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wait_command or list_commands. It implies polling/fetching is appropriate after a command has been run, but does not state this or mention cases where a different tool should be chosen. The absence of any contextual usage direction makes this a weak point.

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