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 states 'manifest-backed status' but does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what side effects exist, or if authentication is required. The description is too terse to disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose.

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, concise sentence. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices clarity for 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 tool has a single required parameter and an output schema, the description should at least hint at the output structure or how the status is represented. It does not, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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%, meaning the description does not explain the meaning of 'run_id' beyond its schema title. The description fails to add any context about what the run_id represents or how to obtain it.

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 specifies the action ('return') and the resource ('manifest-backed status for one authoring run'), providing a clear verb+resource pair. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_authoring_runs' or 'review_authoring_contract_for_run', which may also relate to run status.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_authoring_runs' (which might return statuses for multiple runs) or 'review_authoring_contract_for_run'. No context for prerequisites or postconditions is given.

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