get_image_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 behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and 'status' hints at the data returned, but since an output schema exists that already defines the response, the description adds no behavioral context such as freshness, whether status is cached, or what states are possible.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first. It is appropriately terse, though the terseness borders on under-specification for a tool with an undocumented parameter.

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?

The output schema covers return values and the read-only nature is inferable from 'Get', so the definition is minimally workable. But with no annotations and an undocumented required parameter, it leaves gaps an agent would need to guess at.

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?

The single parameter run_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not — it only implies that the id selects 'one image-pipeline run' without stating format, origin, or how to obtain a valid value. This falls well short of what a 0%-coverage parameter needs.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pipeline and build status for one image-pipeline run'), which clearly separates it from get_image_run_evidence (evidence, not status) and list_recent_image_runs (list, not single-run). It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource noun is distinct enough that an agent can tell them apart.

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 phrase 'for one image-pipeline run' implies the single-run scope and that a run_id is needed, which distinguishes it from the list tool by inference. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative tools (evidence vs status vs list) despite three relevant siblings.

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