gcp_run_status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not mention any side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits, merely stating it 'queries' status.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action. The pipe-separated keywords are somewhat redundant but do not significantly bloat the text. Only essential information is included.

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 simplicity (read-only status query), annotations covering safety profile, and no output schema required, the description is adequately complete. It covers the what, though it could mention output format implications despite the format parameter.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning or context for any parameter, leaving the schema to explain them fully.

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 queries Cloud Run service status, using multiple relevant keywords (상태, 서비스 상태, 배포 상태). The purpose is specific to status checking, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gcp_run_logs or gcp_services_list, though not explicitly differentiating.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as gcp_run_logs for logs or gcp_services_list for listing services. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not.

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