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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-like status retrieval but does not state that it is non-mutating, whether it polls/wait, or what conditions apply (e.g., run must already exist).

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though the phrase 'capability run status' is slightly jargon-heavy and less clear than the title.

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 with one parameter and an output schema, so the description is mostly adequate for invocation. However, it lacks usage context among the many sibling status/run tools and does not clarify prerequisites or side effects.

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 0%, and the description only weakly compensates by saying the status is for a 'Hermes-planned run.' The run_id parameter is self-describing by name, but its format, source, or relationship to other runs is not explained.

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 clear action ('Return') and resource ('capability run status for a Hermes-planned run'). It is understandable and distinguishes itself from other status tools by specifying 'Hermes agent,' but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. With sibling tools like swarme_ai_status, swarme_tool_status, and swarme_agent_run, the description gives no explicit conditions or alternatives, leaving selection to inference.

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