get_run_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the meaning of key return fields like rootRunId and parentRunId for re-execution chains, and implies this is a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or discuss authentication needs, which would elevate transparency.

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 well-structured, starting with a clear purpose sentence, then listing returned fields, explaining key fields, and ending with usage guidance. It is concise but could be slightly shorter without losing meaning. Overall, efficiently communicates essential information.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main use case and explains return field semantics. However, it omits description of the env parameter, which is a gap. The mention of output fields is helpful but not essential since an output schema exists. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It mentions run_id implicitly but does not describe the env parameter or provide format/usage details for run_id. This leaves the agent uncertain about what to pass for env (e.g., allowed values) and whether run_id is a UUID or name.

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 retrieves full details for a single run, including status, config, tags, and lineage. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_runs (which lists runs) and get_run_logs/get_run_stats by focusing on a specific run and its lineage details.

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 explicitly says 'When to use: after get_runs to inspect a specific run, or to check whether a run is a re-execution of a previous one.' This provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate and implies alternatives (e.g., get_runs for listing).

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