get_run_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It adds value by enumerating the possible status values and advising to check elapsedTime and error details on ERRORED runs. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, has rate limits, or any other side effects. For a simple polling tool, the provided details are helpful but not exhaustive.

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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence provides a compact enum of status values, and the third gives a practical tip for handling errors. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant details.

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 tool's low complexity, the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), and the description's inclusion of status enum and error-handling guidance, the description is largely complete. The only gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to use this polling tool versus alternatives like run_and_wait, but this does not severely hinder a capable agent.

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 the meaning or format of run_id and project_id. While the names are self-explanatory, the description should compensate for the lack of schema documentation, and it does not. The tool description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 tool's action ('Poll the status of a project run') and identifies the resource (project run). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on status polling rather than execution (run_project), cancellation (cancel_run), or history (get_run_history). Listing the specific status values reinforces this unique purpose.

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 usage for checking run status by saying 'Poll the status', but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like run_and_wait (which likely waits for completion) or get_run_history (which lists past runs). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, making this merely implied rather than explicit.

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