get_workflow_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description's genuine addition is the tier gate ('available_with_tier_gate; tier: scout_catalog_pioneer_runs') and the backing endpoints, which tell the agent access may fail. It does not describe the returned status values or whether polling is expected.

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, but the most useful sentence sits behind a dense bracket of capability/API metadata. That metadata has value yet is front-loaded ahead of the human-readable purpose, so the structure is functional rather than clean.

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?

For a single-parameter read with no output schema, the definition covers access tiering but omits any indication of what a 'status' response contains (queued/running/failed/completed) and whether it should be polled. That leaves a meaningful gap for an agent orchestrating workflows.

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% and the single required parameter 'runId' is never explained in the description. The agent gets no hint about the identifier's format or provenance (likely returned by run_workflow), which matters for correctly invoking the tool.

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 and resource: 'Read the status of a Trail Marshal workflow run.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_workflows (enumeration) and run_workflow (mutation/execution). It stops short of 5 only because it doesn't contrast itself with the near-neighbor get_cycle_status.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as get_cycle_status or the list_workflows family, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., that a runId must come from a prior run_workflow call). The agent must infer the invocation context.

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