get_run_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does reveal that the tool polls until completion, implying a blocking/waiting behavior, but it does not explain whether it returns a final status, how it handles failed runs, whether it can time out, or what side effects (if any) it has. The absence of any read-only or destructive hints leaves the safety profile unclear.

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 that front-loads the verb and object without filler. It is concise, but it is also somewhat undersized for the amount of context the tool needs; slightly more structure or detail would make it more useful without sacrificing readability.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral and semantic context. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to identify the job run to poll, or what 'until completion' means in terms of blocking, polling interval, or timeout. The definition is too thin for an agent to invoke the tool with confidence in a non-trivial workflow.

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%, and the description provides no information about job_id, notebook, or workspace. The parameter names are only weakly self-descriptive, and the relationship between them, their formats, and their optionality are entirely unexplained. For a tool with three nullable parameters and no required fields, this is a critical gap.

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 identifies a specific verb ('poll') and resource ('notebook job run') and states the intended terminal condition ('until completion'). This makes the basic purpose understandable and distinguishes it from run/cancel operations, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling status tools like pipeline_status or clarify what the returned status looks like.

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 phrase 'poll a notebook job run' implies that this tool should be used after starting a notebook job and when the caller wants to wait for that job to finish. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus run_notebook_job, cancel_notebook_job, or pipeline_status, and no mention of when not to use it.

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