helm_run_status

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

Without annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by stating it returns status, exit_code, and timestamps. However, it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, if it requires specific permissions, or what happens when the run_id doesn't exist. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the essential information upfront. Every word adds value, and there is no 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 simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, input, and return fields. It could mention potential errors or prerequisites (e.g., run_id must be from a previous execution), but it is largely complete for basic usage.

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 only parameter, run_id, is described as an integer with title 'Run Id' in the schema. The description adds context by explaining it identifies a specific script run, which compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. This provides meaningful guidance beyond the raw 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 verb 'Get', the resource 'status of a script run', and specifies the exact fields returned (status, exit_code, timestamps). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'helm_run_script' and 'helm_get_script' by focusing on status retrieval.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention that the run_id must come from a previously executed script, nor does it advise against misuse or refer to related tools for different tasks.

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