kalei_run_next

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the run can return status 'complete' and that engine behavior varies, and 'Get'/'Read' imply a non-mutating operation. However, it does not explicitly affirm side-effect-free behavior or describe what a non-terminal response looks like.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by practical guidance and the terminal edge case. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core call path: what to fetch, how to interpret engine options, and when the run is complete. It could specify the return structure more, but it is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description never explains run_id. 'Your run' weakly implies the ID identifies the run, and run_id is conventional, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get the next environment in your run.' The 'next' qualifier and terminal-status note help distinguish it from siblings like kalei_run_progress and kalei_run_result, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It gives actionable guidance: read state.availableActions and the engine option list rather than assuming rules, because engines differ. This tells the agent how to interpret the result and when to expect termination ('complete'), but it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name an alternative.

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