Worker run status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavior: it does not say whether the status is a point-in-time snapshot or pollable, what happens for an unknown/stale id, or whether reads are rate-limited. With annotations present the bar is lower, but the description contributes essentially nothing beyond restating 'read'.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness edges toward under-specification rather than elegant brevity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry the burden of explaining what status values or fields come back (queued/running/failed, timing, error info). It also leaves the source of the id unexplained. For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, this is materially incomplete.

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 67%: profile and project are documented in the schema, while id has no schema description. The phrase 'by its id' only confirms the id identifies the run and adds no format, provenance, or defaulting detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the work.

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 (status of a worker-queued run) and names the lookup key (id), so it is clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings like ris_worker_cancel and ris_worker_enqueue. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with adjacent reads such as ris_list_my_jobs or ris_job_history.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no statement of where the id comes from (e.g., returned by ris_worker_enqueue), and no alternative named for broader status queries. The agent must infer context from sibling names alone.

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