get_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully says that the response includes status, result, and any exception, which is meaningful. However, it does not describe behavior for unknown or expired ids, whether the command may still be running, or the read-only guarantee beyond the verb 'get'.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence contains the verb, object, selector, and output content with no filler. Every word 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?

For a one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the definition is nearly complete: it names the input source via the schema, the operation, and the returned data. It lacks only explicit not-found or polling semantics, which are minor for such a simple getter.

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%: the only parameter, id, is documented as the command id returned by run_command. The description's 'by id' reinforces rather than extends the schema, so the baseline 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 states a specific action ('Get'), a specific resource ('one command'), and the selection key ('by id'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_commands and run_command. It also names what is returned: status, result, and any exception.

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 'by id' implies a targeted lookup, and the schema's id description ('Command id returned by run_command') supplies the prerequisite. However, the description itself does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of list_commands or that it is meant for checking the result of an asynchronously started command.

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