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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it discloses the exact return structure (nested workflows/jobs/attempts including ids, keys, statuses and error messages). With no output schema, this is the only place that shape is documented; only permission or rate-limit context is missing.

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 dense sentences, both earning their place: the first states what is returned, the second states what it is used for. The most decision-relevant content (the resource and its nested contents) is front-loaded with zero filler.

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-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, and downstream usage routing. The counterpart API name (CIService/GetRunStatus) is also included, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to select and invoke it correctly.

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 single run_id parameter is already documented there as 'CI run id, from depot_ci_list_runs.' The description adds no format, prefix or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for schema-driven parameter documentation 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?

Names a specific verb (Get) and resource (a Depot CI run's status) and enumerates the nested shape it returns (workflows, jobs, attempts with ids, keys, statuses, error messages). This distinguishes it from siblings like depot_ci_get_job or depot_ci_list_runs by making clear it is the hierarchical status tree, not a flat list or single entity.

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 frames the purpose: 'This is how to find the workflowId / jobId / attemptId for the log, diagnosis and retry tools,' routing the agent to the correct downstream calls. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming a competing sibling for the same data, so it is clear 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.