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 declares 'Read-only,' which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other aspects like rate limits, normalization, error states, or authorization needs beyond the read-only hint.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. Every word serves a purpose: states the action, explains parameter behavior, and notes side effects. Ideal conciseness.

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 presence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, read-only), the description covers the essential information. It does not explain error scenarios or output details, but the output schema handles that.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining the effect of omitting run_id (lists all runs) and implying its use for specific runs. This compensates for the lack of schema-level 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 tool polls run cycle handles and lists runs since server boot when run_id is omitted. The verb 'poll' combined with 'lists every run' makes the purpose specific. Sibling 'run_cycle' likely starts runs, so get_run_status is distinct.

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 explains behavior with and without run_id, which provides implicit usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative siblings, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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