get_run_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully reveals that the event history is 'append-only,' which is a meaningful behavioral trait. But it does not state whether the operation has side effects, requires a running run, or how the snapshot may differ from the event history. Some useful context is provided, but gaps remain.

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 front-loaded sentence that directly states the core action and resources. It has no filler. It could earn a 5 by adding a brief note about run_id or usage, but as a concise statement it is well structured.

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 existence of an output schema, the return values may be covered elsewhere, but the description still lacks parameter semantics and usage guidance. With one required parameter and several closely related siblings, the description is not enough for an agent to confidently call this tool for the right purpose.

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 description does not explain run_id at all. It mentions 'a job snapshot' but never links run_id to a job or run, leaving the only parameter's semantics entirely to the schema's bare type declaration. This is insufficient compensation for the 0% coverage.

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 uses the verb 'Return' with a specific resource: 'a job snapshot and its append-only event history.' This clearly communicates a read-oriented snapshot/history retrieval. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling 'get_run_summary,' which likely overlaps conceptually, so it misses the last bit of differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like get_run_summary or list_run_artifacts. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context clues to help an agent decide among siblings. Its usage is only implied by the tool's name.

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