Get Command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add real context: it explains that failed and still-running subcommands are included and that 'currentStep' points to the deepest active subcommand, which is how you locate a hung command. It stops short of stating read-only semantics, error behavior for an unknown command_id, or cost/latency.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the returned fields and followed by the interpretive detail. Minor friction: the description is in Portuguese while the tool name, title, and sibling tools are English, which adds a small parsing cost for an English-speaking agent.

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 needn't be re-explained, and the description covers the key semantics of 'currentStep'. What is missing for a one-parameter lookup tool is any statement about the identifier's origin and behavior on invalid IDs.

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% and the single parameter command_id is never mentioned in the description — no indication of format, source, or whether it is the command ID returned by list_running_commands. The description does not compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Detalhes de um comando') and enumerates the payload (state, execution time, failed subcommands, still-running subcommands), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling listers like list_active_commands or list_running_commands, but the singular framing makes the intent readable.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call it to inspect one already-known command, and the 'currentStep' note hints at diagnosing a stuck command. There is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of list_running_commands/list_active_commands, and no prerequisites such as where the command_id comes from.

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