Get T3 run status

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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, so the description's key contribution is the non-obvious caveat: 'A disconnected result is not evidence that the run failed.' This adds useful interpretive context beyond the structured metadata.

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 very short and both sentences carry distinct information: what the tool does and a critical interpretation warning. The use of jargon like 'gateway run handle' and 'T3 state' slightly reduces clarity but not conciseness.

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 read-only annotation, output schema, and disconnected-result caveat cover safety and return interpretation reasonably well. What is missing is guidance on how runId relates to a gateway run handle and how this tool differs from t3_run_wait, which an agent would need for confident tool selection.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage alert the only parameter is runId, the phrase 'gateway run handle' adds some semantic color, implying that runId is such a handle. However, the description never explicitly maps runId to that handle or explains how to obtain it, so it only partially compensates for the absent parameter docs.

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 title states the resource ('T3 run status') and the first sentence gives a specific action: reconciling a gateway run handle against T3 state. It is clear enough to identify this as a status-lookup tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like t3_run_wait.

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 explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as t3_run_wait or t3_run_interrupt. The disconnected-result caveat is behavioral guidance, not usage routing; the agent is left to infer when this status check is appropriate.

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