get_workspace_run_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the action itself, but it does not contradict the annotations. With annotation coverage present, this is acceptable but not enhanced.

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 concise sentence with no filler and the action is front-loaded. It does not waste words, though the phrase 'preview runtime status' is somewhat jargon-heavy and could be clearer.

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 read-only status tool with annotations and an output schema, this is minimally viable. However, the description does not clarify what a 'workspace preview runtime' is, how it relates to workspace runs, or when to choose this over get_workspace_command_status, leaving some contextual ambiguity.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both team_id and workspace_id already have clear descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add any extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 states a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('workspace preview runtime status'), so an agent can tell this is a read-only status lookup. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_workspace_command_status or get_workspace_git_status, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_workspace_command_status, start_workspace_run, or stop_workspace_run. No context, exclusions, or sibling comparisons are provided, so the agent has to guess which status tool is appropriate for a given situation.

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