get_cde_job_run_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get status' – implying a read operation – but does not mention authentication requirements (despite cde_user/cde_password params), error handling, or any edge-case behavior. The credential parameters hint at auth, but the description gives no context.

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 6-word sentence: 'Get status of a specific CDE job run.' It is front-loaded and has no filler words. However, it is so sparse that it borders on under-specification, but this is still concise rather than verbose.

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?

Even though an output schema exists (reducing the need to explain return values), the description is incomplete for a 4-parameter tool with optional auth credentials and multiple sibling tools. It lacks usage guidance, parameter explanations, and any context about when or how to supply cde_user/cde_password/cde_endpoint_url. The tool's complexity is not matched by the description's minimal detail.

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 0%, and the tool description provides no parameter information whatsoever. run_id, cde_user, cde_password, and cde_endpoint_url are completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent without any clue about their meanings or expected formats. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

Description states 'Get status of a specific CDE job run' – a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('status of a specific CDE job run'), which distinguishes it from list_cde_job_runs (which lists runs) and get_airflow_dag_run_status (Airflow-specific). The specificity of 'specific' run makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when a run_id is known and status is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus list_cde_job_runs for seeing all runs or get_airflow_dag_run_status for a different system. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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