Get Ennodia run

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

Annotations already cover the read-only safety profile, and the description adds genuinely new semantics: a nonterminal response means work continues, and the agent must not treat its findings as consumed. That is real behavioral context beyond readOnlyHint. It does not cover rate limits, auth, or return shape.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the primary action plus recommended configuration are front-loaded ahead of the caveat about nonterminal responses. Every sentence earns its place.

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 six-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the recommended invocation profile, and the key interpretation pitfall. The main residual gap is that the response structure itself is undocumented anywhere, though the compact parameter description partially compensates.

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%, so each of the six parameters is already documented with defaults, ranges, and practical guidance. The description restates a recommended combination (waitMs, compact, includeEvents) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 gives a specific verb pair (inspect / wait for completion) against a named resource (a run), and the required runId parameter ties it to outputs of ennodia_run. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from ennodia_cancel_run or ennodia_history, so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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?

It gives concrete operational guidance for the polling case ('Prefer waitMs: 30000, compact: true and includeEvents: false while awaiting results') and states the condition under which the call is not finished. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use this tool.

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