apps_run_status

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It declares 'Read-only' and lists expected outputs (status, image/video refs, text). It omits potential error behavior or permissions, but is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's effects and safety.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word adds value.

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 read-only status check with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (status enum, output types) and usage context. No additional information seems necessary.

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 coverage is 100% but descriptions are minimal. The tool's description adds context by specifying that prompt_id comes from apps_run, helping the agent understand parameter provenance beyond the schema's generic text.

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 specifies the verb 'Check', the resource 'one app run', and the identifier 'by prompt_id (from apps_run)'. It also lists the statuses and outputs, clearly distinguishing it from tools that initiate runs or manage other resources.

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?

Description implies the agent should have first called apps_run to get a prompt_id, and states 'Read-only' indicating safe use. However, it does not explicitly exclude other status tools or provide when-not guidance, leaving some ambiguity.

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