Get command status

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

The readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations already establish the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description usefully contributes the status vocabulary (pending, success, failed, timeout), which tells the agent what a non-terminal result looks like, but says nothing about polling cadence, whether terminal states are stable, or how long results are retained.

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?

One compact sentence with the action and the result states front-loaded in parentheses. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs to be cut.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The only gap is operational guidance about polling/re-checking after a pending result, which is minor for this tool's 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — action_id is documented as coming from a prior command and vehicle notes the single-vehicle default — so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (status of an earlier remote command), and enumerates the possible outcomes so the agent knows the shape of the answer. It is distinguishable from data-retrieval siblings like get_vehicle_status, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 phrase "an earlier remote command" implies the sequencing context — call this after issuing a command — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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