inforcer_reports_run_status

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the exact behavioral contract: while the run is in progress, isTerminal is false and no outputs are returned; once finished, isTerminal is true with downloadable outputs. This tells the agent what to expect across repeated calls.

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 two sentences, front-loads the action, and packs the essential state-related behavior into compact, unambiguous language. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 polling tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return behavior (isTerminal and outputs), the input source (run_id from inforcer_reports_run), and the read-only nature. Nothing needed for correct invocation is 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 single parameter run_id is fully described in the schema as the identifier returned by inforcer_reports_run. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Poll a report run.' It also differentiates itself from siblings by describing the terminal-state behavior (isTerminal false vs true), which makes it clear this is the polling counterpart to inforcer_reports_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 clearly implies when to use the tool: after starting a report run, poll until isTerminal is true. The run_id is explicitly tied to inforcer_reports_run in the schema. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the polling semantics and read-only nature provide clear context.

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