get_drive_run_status

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses two useful behavioral traits: it does not open a separate device connection (no side effect on the device link) and it returns cached records carrying timestamps. The warning that stale records must not be read as live motion state is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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 compact clauses separated by semicolons, front-loaded with what is read before the behavioral notes and the caching warning. Every clause adds information; nothing is filler, though the telegraphic style is slightly dense.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema and full safety annotations, the description covers scope, default behavior, and a real misreading hazard. The only gap is the lack of differentiation from the sibling runtime-status reader.

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 0% (job_id has no description), so the description must compensate, and it does: it states that an empty job_id returns the most recent job, which explains the empty-string default that the schema leaves unexplained.

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 names a specific verb (read) and resource (a continuous-run job's status), and enumerates what is returned: heartbeat records, status word, actual speed feedback, stop result, and process status. It does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling read_drive_runtime_status, so an agent cannot tell from this text alone which one to pick.

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 one concrete usage rule — omit the ID to get the most recent job — plus a caution not to treat cached records as current motion state. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus read_drive_runtime_status or get_drive_run_status-adjacent tools such as execute_drive_run/stop_drive_pc_control, leaving the choice implied.

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