get_triggered_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 explains the parameters and their sources but does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or polling behavior. The description does not contradict any annotations as none exist.

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 concise with a brief header followed by parameter descriptions. Every line adds value, though a slightly more compact structure could improve front-loading. Overall, it is efficient and well-organized.

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 (which likely explains return values), the description does not need to cover return structure. It sufficiently explains how to obtain the required parameters. Minor improvements could mention whether the tool is idempotent or read-only, but it remains adequate for the tool's 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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to all three parameters: identifier is a deployment identifier, run_id is the ID returned by trigger_run, and impl is an orchestrator backend that can be auto-detected. This significantly aids parameter understanding.

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 'Check the status of a previously triggered run', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like trigger_run and get_run by explicitly referencing the trigger context and linking parameters to trigger_run.

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 provides clear usage guidance by specifying that identifier is the same as passed to trigger_run, run_id is returned by trigger_run, and impl is auto-detected. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond the implicit connection to trigger_run.

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