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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real value beyond that: results contain metadata rather than retained command output, and interrupted runs must be inspected and are never auto-resumed. These are non-obvious state behaviors an agent needs.

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?

Four short sentences, all load-bearing, with the core read operation and the runId listing rule front-loaded. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly characterizes the return (metadata, IDs, paths) and its limits (no retained command output), plus interrupted-run semantics. Adequate for a read-only status tool, though it could say more about limit/deviceId.

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 50%; deviceId and workSessionId are documented in the schema, but limit and runId are not. The description clarifies runId's optional listing behavior, which compensates partially, but adds nothing about limit or deviceId scoping.

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 ('Read') and resource ('a saved workflow run's progress') and enumerates the returned artifacts (step operation IDs, output paths, file undo IDs). This clearly separates it from get_workflow (definition) and list_workflows, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete usage rule: 'Omit runId to list recent runs in this work session,' which tells the agent how to switch between single-run inspection and listing. No explicit exclusions versus get_workflow/list_workflows, but the operational context is clear.

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