get_command_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what information will be returned (status, output, start time, duration), but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Since it's a simple read operation, the lack of such detail is minimally problematic, but the description adds little beyond the obvious.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes a bilingual translation that is redundant but not harmful. Every sentence 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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description sufficiently covers the purpose, the targeted resource, and the information delivered. It doesn't address error cases or alternative tools, but these are not required for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter task_id with description and examples, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'asynchronous command task,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like cancel_command_task and execute_command_async. It also lists the key data fields (status, output, start time, duration), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 its use case: when you need details about a specific async task. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like cancel_command_task, nor does it mention any usage prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is only implicit.

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