get_hex_run_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific 'run status details' might include. The return format is vaguely described as 'JSON string,' lacking detail on structure or typical fields.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value: the first establishes the tool's function, and the subsequent lines provide essential parameter and return information without 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling, authentication) and detailed return value explanation, which would be important for a status-checking tool in a workflow system.

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 description explicitly documents both parameters ('project_id' and 'run_id') with clear semantic meaning ('UUID of the Hex project' and 'UUID of the run'), adding significant value beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage and only provides titles. This compensates well for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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') and resource ('status of a project run'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_hex_project_runs' which might also provide run status information in a different context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_hex_project_runs' (which might list runs) and 'cancel_hex_run' (which might require status checks), there's no indication of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for this specific status retrieval tool.

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