Стан запуску

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the full result text is not included, which is a useful behavioral trait, but it omits other relevant aspects such as read-only nature, whether the tool blocks or returns immediately, or any authentication requirements. This is minimal coverage for a status-checking tool.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core purpose and the key distinction (excluding full result text), making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one string parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but not complete. It lacks information about the response format, possible status values, or how the status should be interpreted. It also does not clarify the relationship to sibling tools like glm_wait or glm_cancel, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions run_id but only by name, without explaining its format, origin, or how it relates to the run lifecycle. The schema itself only defines it as a string, so the description adds no meaningful semantic value beyond restating the parameter name.

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 the tool retrieves the status of a run by run_id and explicitly excludes the full result text, which clearly distinguishes it from a result-fetching tool like glm_result. It is specific about the resource (run) and identifier, but does not name the alternative sibling tool directly.

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 implies this tool is for checking status without pulling the full result, which gives some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like glm_wait or glm_result, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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