askew_get_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but does not mention the optional 'wait' parameter (which can block up to 60 seconds) or any side effects, errors, or return behavior. It adds some context (the 'unknown' trigger) but lacks depth.

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. It front-loads the primary purpose and places the usage condition in parentheses, avoiding unnecessary words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must compensate for missing details. It omits explanation of the wait parameter, the nature of the returned status/result, and potential errors or timeouts. This leaves agents guessing about blocking behavior and response format, making it incomplete for a tool that can wait.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only implies jobId by referencing 'a job started with askew_run', but never explicitly describes it or the 'wait' parameter. The description fails to add meaning for the wait parameter, which is essential for correct usage.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status and result of a job'), and names the related tool askew_run, which differentiates it from siblings like askew_run, askew_list_routes, etc. The parenthetical adds a clear distinguishing condition.

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?

It explicitly provides a usage trigger: 'use when the run returned unknown'. This names the alternative (askew_run) and the condition that selects this tool, giving clear guidance on when to invoke it.

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