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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return content including the 10-step truncation cap, which is genuinely useful behavioral detail. However, it never states that this is a safe read-only inspection, nor how to retrieve steps beyond the last 10, so the safety and pagination profile is left unstated.

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?

A single sentence with the scope, the key state (halted), and the return breadth front-loaded. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the step cap, which is close to sufficient. What is missing is the read-only nature and how run_id relates to the sibling per-step check, but these are minor gaps at this 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 100% and the run_id description already explains the id's format and the requirement to reuse it across steps and sub-agents. The description adds nothing about run_id, so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented parameter.

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 ("Show") and a specific resource (a run's loops, halted status, last 10 steps), so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling loop_check_step (per-step vs whole-run scope), leaving that separation to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for inspecting a run's aggregate loop state. There is no stated condition for choosing it over loop_check_step, no prerequisite, and no note on when it should not be used.

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