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

With no annotations available, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. 'Read' indicates a non-mutating operation, which is helpful, but it does not describe behavior when both ids are omitted or invalid, whether it can return partial/in-progress state, or any latency/auth considerations.

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 no filler: it states the action, resource, and scope efficiently. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

The output schema covers return values, and the schema covers parameter semantics, but the description itself lacks guidance on when to use this tool and how the optional ids interact. For a tool with two optional parameters, the absence of usage context leaves a noticeable gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters, including default behavior for cursor_agent_id. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read'), a resource ('TeamShared Cloud Agent run'), and qualifies it as 'latest status', making the operation clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like agent_run_list or agent_run_cancel, though it does not explicitly name the alternative it is not.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus agent_run_list or agent_run_start, and no exclusions or conditions. It also does not explain how to choose between run_id and cursor_agent_id, leaving usage context entirely to the agent.

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