dsh_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the non-blocking, one-off nature ('never a way to wait'), explains the non-obvious 'interrupted' state (Harness restart cut it short), and clarifies that human_interjections mean the result reflects that typed input. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or whether the run is mutated in any way, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 tool's purpose is front-loaded in the opening phrase, and the routing advice is placed last where it belongs. However, the middle is one very long run-on sentence with a heavy parenthetical dump of states and fields, which taxes readability even though most clauses carry real information.

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 must describe the return shape itself, and it does so comprehensively: state values, session_id, recent events, final reply, waiting_on, and human_interjections. Combined with the sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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%, so both parameters (run_id, tail) are already documented by the schema, establishing the 3 baseline. The description alludes to 'recent events' without adding format or range guidance for tail, so it adds little beyond the schema here.

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 states a specific resource and verb-equivalent ('Progress of a run') and then enumerates exactly what a caller receives: state, session_id, events, final reply, waiting_on, human_interjections. It also names the sibling it is not (dsh_wait), so an agent can distinguish it from the other run-related tools without opening any schema.

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 an explicit when-not ('A one-off look, never a way to wait') and routes to the correct alternative ('to wait for the reply use dsh_wait'), including the retry case ('if dsh_wait timed out, call dsh_wait again'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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