get_run_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves status but doesn't describe what 'detailed status' includes (e.g., progress, errors, timestamps), whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with robot runs.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of interacting with robot runs and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed status' entails, potential error cases, or the return format, which are crucial for an AI agent to use this tool effectively in a robotics context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('robot_ip' and 'run_id'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed status of a specific run', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_runs' (which likely lists multiple runs) or 'robot_health' (which might provide health status rather than run status), so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid run ID), exclusions (e.g., not for general robot status), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_runs' for listing runs or 'control_run' for managing runs, leaving usage context unclear.

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