chatgpt_webui_run

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only calls the tool a 'run checker' and states what inputs to provide; it does not describe what the tool returns, whether it consumes/deletes the run result, how errors are handled, or whether polling has side effects. The schema's parameter descriptions cover wait/poll mechanics, but the overall behavior remains opaque.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds the essential input-source guidance. There is no redundant fluff. The only minor issue is that 'Unified run checker' is a label rather than a full sentence, which slightly reduces clarity but does not waste space.

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?

This tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to provide enough context for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and return values. It fails to describe what response the agent should expect, what happens if the run is not found, what the default behavior is without wait_timeout_ms, or whether the result can be retrieved after the tool returns. The input-side guidance is useful, but the output and behavioral side is incomplete.

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 schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema by specifying that run_id must come from chatgpt_webui_prompt background mode and that job_id is from legacy async tools. This clarifies the relationship and origin of the identifiers, going slightly beyond the schema's wording.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Unified run checker' and clarifies that it operates on run IDs from chatgpt_webui_prompt background mode or legacy async job IDs. This gives a specific resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_async_status. However, 'run checker' is not as explicit as a direct verb like 'poll' or 'wait for', and the exact action is somewhat implied.

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 explicitly tells users to use run_id from chatgpt_webui_prompt background mode or job_id from legacy async tools, which provides clear guidance on when to use this tool. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use sibling tools, but the phrase 'unified' plus the reference to legacy tools implies it replaces or consolidates them.

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