run_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (including both a successful payload and an error dict), and adds behavioral rules ('never omit the artifact paths or continue after a closed status'). It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a read operation, the context is adequate.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then usage, return format, and a warning. It is somewhat lengthy due to the full return dict, but the format is structured and each section adds value. It could be tightened by omitting the return dict if the output schema already covers it.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description adds crucial usage guidance and error handling context. For a simple 1-parameter tool, it covers the key aspects: what it reads, when to call it, what it returns, and common pitfalls. No significant information is missing.

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 has a single parameter, run_id, with no description. The tool description does not explicitly explain the parameter, though it references 'a run' throughout. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate by detailing run_id, but it relies on the name and context. This is a minor gap.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Read closure state, progress, budget, and artifact paths for a run.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like submit_child or next_parent, which perform different actions.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Call this after every submit_child and at the end of every cycle summary. Stop requesting parents when status says the run is closed.' This gives clear when-to-use context and a stopping condition. It also includes a 'Mistake to avoid' section that reinforces proper usage.

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