VoiceAI Run Status

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

With readOnlyHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds real value: it discloses the status enum, that output file paths are returned, and that the log tail is only included while running or failed. It stops short of mentioning auth requirements or pagination, so it earns a solid but not top score.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The only soft spot is the dangling reference to 'recommended_prompt_updates', a field that appears in neither the schema nor a sibling, which a reader has to take on faith.

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 read-only status tool with no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and covers status, output paths, and log tail. However, it leaves out_dir undocumented and references an unexplained field, so an agent still has gaps to fill.

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 coverage is only 50%: run_id is well documented in the schema (returned by ctm_voiceai_write_report) while out_dir has no description anywhere. The description's 'output file paths' phrase only loosely gestures at out_dir, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap. A baseline 3 reflects partial coverage.

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 and resource ('Returns the status of an analysis run') and enumerates the possible states (running/complete/error) plus the outputs returned. It is clear but does not differentiate from the close sibling ctm_voiceai_list_runs, leaving the agent to infer the per-run vs list distinction.

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 description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names an alternative. The conditional clauses ('when still running or failed', 'When complete') describe return behavior, not when this tool should be chosen over siblings, so the agent gets no routing help.

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