forge_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool shows phase and progress and that it auto-selects the active run when runId is omitted, which is helpful. However, it does not explain what happens when runId is omitted and there are zero or multiple active runs, nor any error behavior.

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 two short, purposeful sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the conditional behavior is stated efficiently without 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?

For a simple status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool reports and how runId selection works. It could mention edge-case behavior when no runId is provided and the active-run condition is not met, but overall it is reasonably 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?

The input schema already documents runId and the optional condition with 100% coverage. The description mostly restates this, adding only the phrase 'uses that one' to clarify the auto-selection behavior, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Shows') and resource ('which phase a run is in and its progress'). It is easy to tell this is a status/read tool, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like forge_next or forge_tasks.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need a run's phase and progress. It also gives a useful fallback rule for when runId can be omitted, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over its siblings or what alternatives exist.

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