get_run_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key fact that the tool is unavailable and the reason, which is more than a generic stub. But it does not describe what the call returns, whether it errors, or what side effects, if any, occur.

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 front-loaded warning followed by a concrete next step. There is no wasted text, no repetition of schema fields, and it remains scannable for an agent.

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 an unavailable, parameterless stub, the description is mostly sufficient: it tells the agent not to expect normal functionality and how to learn more. However, it does not describe the expected response shape or point to a working alternative among the siblings, leaving some context missing.

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?

The input schema is empty and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies; the description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

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 communicates that the tool is currently unavailable due to signal-mcp not being configured, so an agent understands it is not a functional status-retrieval tool. However, it does not describe the underlying operation or distinguish it from sibling run-related tools, leaving the purpose as a diagnostic stub rather than a normal tool definition.

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 text gives an explicit diagnostic use case: 'Call it to see why.' It also implicitly tells the agent not to expect normal functionality. However, it does not name alternatives or clarify when to prefer siblings like list_runs or get_run_summary, so the usage guidance is incomplete.

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