get_run_status

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

Annotations already convey read-only and idempotent behavior. The description goes further by detailing what the tool reports: queue position, live step progress, and outputs/error details. The only omission is any discussion of poll cadence or rate limits, but the provided context is solid.

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 brief and starts with the most important purpose-context right away. It loses a point because the same phrase 'runs queued with run_workflow(wait=False)' is repeated twice in the text, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

With one simple parameter, a clarifying notation about returns available through an output schema, and clear routing guidance, the description gives the agent enough to select and invoke this tool effectively. It also anticipates the main sibling-tool confusion via long-render vs. polling.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for prompt_id. It implies that prompt_id relates to a run queued with run_workflow(wait=False), but does not explicitly say 'pass the prompt_id returned by run_workflow' or describe its format. This is adequate for a single obvious parameter but not fully explicit.

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 explicitly identifies the tool as a polling companion for run_workflow(wait=False), with the exact fields it returns: queue position, live step progress, and outputs/errors. It also distinguishes itself from run_workflow's long-render pattern, making its purpose unambiguous among siblings.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: to poll a run queued with run_workflow(wait=False). It also tells the agent to see run_workflow's long-render pattern for long/paid renders, providing an explicit alternative condition.

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