command_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does convey that this is a read-only lookup of a recorded result rather than a live execution. It does not disclose what a result contains, whether commands can still be running, or what error/status values are possible.

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 short sentences plus an Args list, with no filler. The lookup purpose is front-loaded and the parameter provenance is stated compactly.

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?

For a one-parameter lookup tool with no annotations, invocation guidance is nearly complete: the source of the id is given. However, with no output schema, the description should clarify what a 'recorded result' looks like in terms of status fields or success/error information, which is currently ambiguous.

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 only says command_id is a required string with title 'Command Id'; the description adds the crucial semantic that the id comes from a recent_commands entry. This provenance meaning is valuable and compensates for 0% schema description coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('recorded result of a previously executed command'), and scopes the operation to a command id. This clearly distinguishes command_status from siblings like recent_commands, which lists commands, and check_pipeline_status, which checks a different pipeline.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent where to obtain the required command_id ('as returned in a recent_commands entry'), implying the correct call sequence. It does not enumerate when not to use the tool, but for a simple status lookup the context is clear.

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