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

annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the nested return structure and that error messages are included, which matters since there is no output schema. It omits any note on cost/pagination of a potentially large status tree, keeping it below 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the routing hint; the parenthetical enumerates return fields compactly. No filler sentences.

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 single-param read tool with no output schema, the description supplies what the schema and annotations cannot: the nested status-tree contents and the cross-tool routing purpose. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains run_id and its origin (depot_ci_list_runs). The description adds no additional format or constraint detail, 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a Depot CI run's status) plus the shape of what's returned: nested workflows, jobs and attempts with ids, keys, statuses and error messages. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like depot_ci_get_job or depot_ci_list_runs without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly states the routing purpose: this is how to obtain workflowId/jobId/attemptId for the log, diagnosis and retry tools, which names concrete downstream alternatives. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it (e.g. versus depot_ci_list_runs for enumerating runs), so it is strong context without full exclusions.

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