Get Run Status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the polling pattern and the terminal status values (RUNNING, SUCCEEDED, FAILED), but omits permission requirements, error behavior for an invalid run_id, and rate limits, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the core purpose leads and the polling guidance and status values follow logically. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description supplies the polling workflow and status vocabulary an agent needs. It is nearly complete for a simple status-check tool, with only minor gaps around error handling and auth.

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 both run_id and workspace_name are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline expectation when the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Check the status of a script run'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It references the related run_script tool as a precondition but does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like get_run_output or run_script_and_wait, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

It gives clear contextual guidance: 'Poll this after run_script to check if execution has completed,' establishing when the tool fits in the workflow. However, it does not name alternatives such as run_script_and_wait (which suggests waiting outright) or state when-not to poll, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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