Get Actor run

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Get' and 'status' convey a read-only polling operation and name the returned data points, but there is no statement about side effects, error behavior, or what happens for a runId that doesn't 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?

Two focused sentences, with the resource and returned fields front-loaded and the usage guidance in the second sentence. Every word adds value.

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?

For a simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields (status, item count, dataset id), the trigger (after call-actor), and the decision it supports. It lacks only minor details such as runId provenance or format, but is otherwise complete.

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 schema is just a runId string with zero description coverage, and the description compensates only indirectly by calling it a 'previous run' after call-actor. This tells the agent that runId identifies an earlier run, but does not specify where to obtain it or any expected format.

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 and resource: 'Get the status, item count and dataset id of a previous run.' The phrase 'previous run' and the focus on run-level output distinguish it from list, log, and abort sibling tools, and tying it to call-actor clarifies its role.

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?

Explicitly directs use to 'after call-actor' for checking success, failure, or abort, giving a clear trigger condition. It does not mention exclusions or point to alternatives like get-actor-run-list, so it falls short of a full routing guide.

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