get_autopilot_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: reading does not affect the run, it keeps going, costs no credits, requires an API key, and an in-progress run is a normal response rather than an error.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured. Each sentence earns its place: it states the purpose, explains how to use it in a polling workflow, clarifies side-effect absence, notes credit usage, and sets expectations about in-progress runs. No filler.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description carries responsibility for explaining call semantics. It covers polling behavior, side effects, credits, error expectations, and API key requirements. It does not detail the exact response fields for progress/results, but the behavioral guidance is sufficient for low complexity and a single parameter.

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 runId described as 'Autopilot run UUID,' so the schema already carries the core meaning. The description adds useful operational semantics by instructing the caller to pass the runId and to poll with time between calls, which goes beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get the current progress and results of one autopilot run.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope ('one autopilot run') distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_autopilot_runs and start_autopilot.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use it: 'This is how you follow a run started by start_autopilot: call it with the runId, leaving time between polls.' It also clarifies what this tool does not do (does not pause/stop/alter) and notes there is no stop tool, setting appropriate expectations.

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