bernstein_run_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds by stating it reads the local run journal and audit evidence without changing them, plus host effects: reads files. This gives a clear safety profile of a read-only operation. It does not add details on errors or return format, but the output schema likely covers that, so the provided behavioral transparency is strong.

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 compact and well-structured: it opens with the primary purpose, then describes accepted identifiers, then discloses the read-only behavior and host effects. Every sentence earns its place without repetition or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description covers purpose, parameter identity, and behavioral side effects, which is mostly sufficient. However, it leaves workdir unexplained and does not mention the sibling bernstein_status, so an agent might struggle to choose correctly between them. This is a gap given the tool's moderate complexity.

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 coverage is only 50%: run_id is well described in the schema (accepts task_id or run_id), but workdir has no schema description and the tool description does not explain it either. The description merely restates run_id semantics already in the schema, adding no new meaning and leaving workdir's purpose ambiguous. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 polls a verifiable handle for a run started with bernstein_run, using a specific verb and resource. It accepts either task_id or run_id, which defines its purpose well. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool bernstein_status, leaving some ambiguity about their distinct roles.

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 when to use the tool: after calling bernstein_run, with either returned identifier. It provides some guidance on parameter inputs but does not mention bernstein_status as an alternative or specify when to choose this tool over others. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative comparisons.

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