get_run_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about how fresh the status is, whether it should be polled, or any access constraints — and the returned fields it names are already captured by the output schema.

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?

A single short fragment with zero filler, and the most important element (current status) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it reads as a noun phrase rather than a complete statement.

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?

With an output schema describing the return shape and annotations covering safety, the description does not need to explain returns or side effects. However, it omits any usage routing and any explanation of the one required identifier, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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?

There is one required parameter, run_id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what a run_id is, where it comes from, or how to obtain it. Referencing "a run" is the only implicit connection, which is a weak substitute for real parameter guidance.

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 names a specific resource (a run) and enumerates the exact contents returned: current status, step history, gate, and pending review items. It clearly reads as a retrieval tool, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from the overlapping sibling list_pending_reviews.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_pending_reviews for review items or resume_run/certify_run for run lifecycle actions. The agent must infer all routing from the name and the sibling list.

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