wait_command

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and repeatability. The description adds the key behavioral trait of blocking until completion, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not disclose what happens on timeout or if the command is already finished, but the core behavior is clearly stated.

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 is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly efficient.

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?

This is a simple tool with good annotations and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks important context about timeout semantics (e.g., what happens when timeout expires) and how the command_id parameter relates to commands started via run_command. These gaps make it adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not mention either 'command_id' or 'timeout' at all. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description provides no information about how they are used, units for timeout, or whether they are required.

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 a specific verb ('wait') and clearly identifies the resource ('a running command execution'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like run_command (starts execution) and get_command_result (fetches results) by focusing on the blocking wait behavior.

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: use when a command is already running and you need to wait for it to complete. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like polling get_command_result, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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