get_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that this is a read-only polling operation and that the command was started elsewhere, but it does not describe possible command states, whether results expire, or how failures surface. This is adequate but not rich.

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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core action comes first, followed by a relevant use-case clause, and nothing restates the schema or annotations.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies both the tool's purpose and the appropriate polling context, while the schema covers the id semantics. It could describe the expected status values or response shape, but nothing critical to selecting and invoking the tool is missing.

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%, and the id parameter is already documented as 'Command id returned when the command was queued.' The description adds only 'by id' and no additional format or source detail, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the status of a single command by id.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_commands (plural) and run_command (starting a command), and the single-command scope distinguishes it from get_queue_status.

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 'poll this after starting a search or refresh' provides a concrete and correct invocation context. However, it does not state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools such as list_commands or get_queue_status, so it falls just short of a 5.

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