Run Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: it returns a status and message, enumerates possible statuses (e.g., completed, running), and specifies the return format. This goes beyond structured annotations.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, one for statuses, and a structured Args/Returns section. No filler, each sentence adds value.

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?

Given the simple tool (1 param, output schema exists, no nested objects), the description covers the return structure and possible statuses. It is complete enough for an agent to use, though it could mention that the tool is safe/read-only (already in annotations).

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 100% with a single parameter (runCounter) described as non-negative integer. The description repeats 'numeric run counter' but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline is 3.

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 clearly states 'Get the current status of a Coalesce run by run counter.' It specifies the action (get), resource (run), and key (run counter), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_run' or 'get_run_details'.

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 lists terminal and non-terminal statuses, giving context on expected outputs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_run' or 'get_run_details'. No guidance on when to avoid or choose sibling tools.

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