Run Task Status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a read-only status polling operation on a 'durable asynchronous run,' which conveys non-blocking, state-querying behavior. However, it doesn't describe return states (pending/running/completed/failed), polling behavior, or whether runs expire, leaving behavioral nuance unspecified.

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, information-dense sentence earns its place with no filler. It front-loads the core action (read state), names the resource type (durable async run), and enumerates both run sources concisely.

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 status-polling tool with an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description is largely sufficient. The output schema presumably documents return states, reducing the need for the description to explain them. Minor gap: could mention that this is the correct tool to poll during long runs, but this is largely implied by 'current state of a durable asynchronous run.'

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 the schema already documents all three parameters including the minLength requirement and optional workspace/conversation binding behavior. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination: 'Read the current state of a durable asynchronous run', clearly distinguishing it from start_run_task (which starts) and read_run_task_result (which reads the final result). It also clarifies the two sources of runs: explicitly started via start_run_task or implicitly returned by bash/run_validation.

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 clearly establishes when this tool applies (checking status of durable async runs) and distinguishes it from starting runs (start_run_task). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this vs read_run_task_result (whether result-reading subsumes status checking) or acceptance_status, leaving some ambiguity about relative tool choice.

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