collector_run_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by specifying the status values (queued|running|done|failed), result count, cost, partial flag, and result rows. It also documents the CSV format option. It does not mention polling behavior or error conditions, but the core behavioral surface is covered.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary action and return fields are front-loaded, and the usage prerequisite and format override are clearly stated. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately enumerates return values and the prerequisite async call. It lacks only minor guidance on polling intervals or how to handle 'queued'/'running' states, but for a status-check tool this is sufficient. Could be a 5 if it included a brief note on polling, but the current coverage is strong.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces what the schema already says for run_id ('returned by run_collector') and format ('csv' returns rows as CSV text). It adds no genuinely new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), identifies the exact resource ('a Collector run by run_id'), and enumerates the returned fields (status, result count, cost, partial flag, result rows). It clearly distinguishes itself from run_collector by explicitly positioning itself as the follow-up to an async 202 response.

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 clear contextual guidance: 'Use after run_collector returned 202/async.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative status tools (e.g., dataset_status), which would elevate it to a 5.

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