lingie_run_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses a read-only, no-download behavior ('只查询，不下载输出文件') and states what information is returned (status, progress, output list). This is strong behavioral transparency for a simple query tool, though it does not cover error cases or rate limits.

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 that states the purpose and the key behavioral qualifier with no redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 one-parameter query tool with complete schema coverage, the description covers the purpose, read-only nature, and the scope of returned data. It could be more explicit about the return format, but the description is largely complete for making the correct call.

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%, and the run_id parameter is already documented as the run_id returned by lingie_run_workflow. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 declares a specific verb '查询' (query) and precisely defines the object: the current status, progress, and output list of a Lingji generation task identified by run_id. It also differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly stating it does not download output files, which distinguishes it from lingie_run_result.

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?

Usage context is implied: the run_id is described as coming from lingie_run_workflow, and the description clarifies this tool is query-only and does not download files. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use it (e.g., if downloads are needed, use lingie_run_result instead).

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