get_run_status

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it reveals that omitting run_id returns all runs since boot, and it uses the verb 'poll' indicating non-blocking repeated calls. It also explicitly states 'Read-only' which aligns with the annotation.

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 extremely concise: three short statements with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, then specifies parameter behavior and read-only nature. Every sentence adds value.

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 an output schema and one optional parameter, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: polling mechanism, parameter dependency for listing all vs. specific run, and read-only nature. It does not explain what a 'run_cycle handle' is, but the tool name and context likely make it clear.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the run_id parameter. The description compensates by explaining the effect of omitting run_id (lists all runs since boot) and implies that providing it polls a specific handle. This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 'poll' and the resource 'run_cycle handles'. It specifies two behaviors: polling a specific run (when run_id given) and listing all runs since boot (when omitted). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_cycle (which likely initiates runs) and list_accounts.

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 this tool is used to check status of run cycles, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like run_cycle or process_queue. It provides context about omitting run_id but no exclusions or scenarios where another tool would be preferred.

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