get_run_status

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It covers the polling nature, status sequence, and timing expectations. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., what happens if run not found) or rate limits, leaving some gaps.

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 concise: 5 lines total, starting with a clear purpose, followed by status list, polling advice, and parameter docs. No superfluous text, well-organized.

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?

Given no output schema, the return value (status) is implied but not explicitly described. The description covers usage context and parameters well. It could mention the response format (e.g., a status string) but is sufficient for a polling tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description provides explicit meanings for both parameters: 'agent_id: The agent's UUID' and 'execution_id: The execution UUID returned by run_agent'. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Poll the status of a specific run' and enumerates status transitions. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_executions (which lists runs) and run_agent (which starts a run) by being a targeted polling tool for a single run.

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 advises to poll every 3-5 seconds and notes typical completion times (30-60 seconds), providing practical usage guidance. It does not explicitly exclude use cases (e.g., non-existent runs) but is adequate for typical polling.

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