Poll a background run's output

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: condensed view, cursor usage, and difference between live and durable records. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 concise (about 3 sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more structured with bullet points.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (condensed stdout/stderr, status, exit code, running_ms). It also covers the cursor mechanism and lifecycle behavior. Enough for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of cursors (to get only new output) and the distinction between live and exited processes. This enhances understanding of parameter usage.

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 clearly states it reads output of a background run by id, specifying the resource (background run) and action (read output). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like sh_run (starts runs) and sh_kill (kills runs), though not explicitly.

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 provides explicit guidance on using cursors for incremental polling ('ideal for tailing a dev server'). It also explains the behavior for live vs. finished processes, but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives.

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