get_run_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose useful behavior: it returns condensed progress rather than logs, and it warns against repeated invocation in a single turn. It omits auth/permission requirements, whether output is cached or live, and what happens with an invalid run_id.

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 short sentences and a constraint, with purpose stated first and the triggering cue immediately after. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so return values need not be described, and the description notes they are concise. However, with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented required run_id, an agent lacks the input sourcing and safety context needed to invoke this confidently.

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?

There is one required parameter (run_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema adds no meaning. The description never explains what a run_id is, its format, or where to obtain it, leaving the sole input undocumented.

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 states a specific verb+resource (get progress for a run) and distinguishes it from the full-log retrieval path ('without returning full logs'). It does not name sibling tools like get_failure, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 an explicit triggering condition ('when the user asks how a download is going') and a usage constraint ('Never call it repeatedly in one response'). It does not route to alternatives such as get_failure for error cases, so it is clear but incomplete.

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