get_autopilot_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 of behavioral disclosure. The description states it's a read operation (Get) but doesn't discuss what fields are returned, whether it's safe to poll repeatedly, whether it requires an active session, or what happens with completed/failed runs. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, more detail on the returned status structure would be valuable.

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?

A single sentence that concisely captures the purpose with zero wasted words. Appropriately short for a simple parameter tool. No redundant phrasing.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description is functionally adequate. The main gap is that there's no output schema and no annotations, so the description could have provided more color on what 'status and progress' means concretely (e.g., state values like running/completed/failed, percentage progress). Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor shortfall rather than a major one.

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% and the single parameter runId is described as 'Autopilot run UUID' in the schema. The description doesn't add format details beyond this, but with only one parameter at full schema coverage, the schema carries the weight adequately. No compensation needed, so baseline 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 verb (Get), the resource (autopilot status), and the scope (specific run, current status and progress). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_autopilot_runs (which lists all runs) and start_autopilot (which initiates a run). However, it could be more explicit about how it differs from get_search_job_status, another status-probing tool.

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 it's for fetching status of a specific autopilot run, which is reasonably clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs list_autopilot_runs (which might also expose status per run) or get_channels_status. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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