get_run_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only operation (get status) and lists the exact status values. It does not mention error conditions or response format, but for a simple status check, the provided information is sufficient.

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 that front-loads the action and includes all necessary information without any filler or redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description effectively covers core behavior, parameter source, and possible return values. It lacks details on error handling or response structure, but these are minor for a status-checking tool.

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 schema already fully describes the run_id parameter and its origin ('The run id returned by run_pipeline'). The description repeats this origin without adding new semantic detail, so it adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get'), a defined resource ('status of a run'), and enumerates the possible status values. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on run status rather than pipeline execution, results, or provenance.

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 provides context that run_id comes from run_pipeline, implying usage after starting a run. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_results, nor does it mention any exclusions or recommended next steps.

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