get_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the return format (ConversationalCard with stage progress, token usage, failure artifact) and implies a read operation. However, it does not discuss safety, destructiveness, idempotency, or any side effects beyond the return.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first states when to call, the second describes the return. Every word is useful; no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple status retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the trigger condition and the return summary. It does not cover error handling or edge cases, but that is acceptable for this tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with the run_id parameter described in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's description ('The run_id returned by start_crew_run'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves the status of a specific Crews run, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_runs (which lists runs) and start_crew_run (which starts a run). The verb 'get status' is specific and matches the tool name.

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 explicitly says 'Call this tool when the user wants the status of a specific Crews run,' providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the sibling tool names (list_runs, start_crew_run) imply those are for different purposes.

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