Get Run Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses that results come from a worklist snapshot, lists the conditions that force re-derivation, states that calls are cheap, and explains the special behavior for the discovery_incomplete state.

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 front-loaded with the core meaning, followed by a compact state list, a necessary special-case explanation, and a caching note. Every sentence adds distinct value and the structure makes the state machine easy to parse.

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 the return shape, and the description thoroughly explains state semantics and snapshot behavior. The only real gap is the lack of any input-parameter guidance, especially for the optional now parameter, so the description is strong but not fully complete.

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 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter. The meaning of run_dir and especially the optional now parameter is left entirely to the agent to infer, so the description provides no compensating guidance.

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 identifies the tool as returning a run's state machine position plus the single next action, and it enumerates the exact state sequence. This goes well beyond the bare title and makes the tool's role unambiguous relative to its many siblings.

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 clear contextual guidance that the tool is served from a snapshot and is cheap to call between steps, which tells the agent when it is appropriate to invoke it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name a direct alternative, but the usage context is strong.

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