get_runner_status

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behavior: does not contact AWS. However, it does not explain what 'local policy and dependency status' entails or potential side effects (likely none). Adequate but could add more detail about what is checked or returned.

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?

Description is very concise at one sentence, front-loaded with key action and differentiator. It's efficient but borderline too short; a bit more context on what 'local policy and dependency status' means would improve without adding much length.

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 zero parameters, presence of output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose and a key behavioral trait. It is fairly complete for the tool's simplicity, but could elaborate on the types of status returned.

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?

Tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% trivially. Baseline for no parameters is 4, and description adds no confusion. No need for parameter information.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Return' and clear resource 'local policy and dependency status'. The phrase 'without contacting AWS' distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_ec2_setup that likely contact AWS. Fully informs purpose and differentiates.

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 implies when to use (when you need local status without contacting AWS) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative sibling tools. Usage guidance is present but minimal and could be improved with comparative advice.

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