读取文献检索运行状态

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

Annotations already assert readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds non-obvious behavioral details: it does not start a browser and does not modify files, and it reads both local run state and Tencent doc/PDF paths. This goes beyond the structured annotations, though it does not discuss error behavior or return format (which is covered by an output schema).

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, front-loaded sentence that starts with the action and lists the exact data returned, followed by a decisive side-effect disclaimer. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant phrasing.

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?

With one simple parameter, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description fully explains what the tool does, what data it reads, and what side effects it avoids. This is complete for the tool's low complexity and leaves no major gap for an 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?

The input schema only defines run_id as a string with no description, and schema_description_coverage is 0%. The description compensates by clarifying that the run_id is a local identifier and enumerating what will be read from it, which gives the agent enough context to understand the parameter's role without over-specifying format.

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 the specific verb '读取' (read) and identifies the resource as the local run_id's status fields (stage, pending user action, errors, Tencent doc target, PDF directory). It also explicitly states '不启动浏览器或修改文件' (does not start browser or modify files), which differentiates it from sibling tools like check_browser_session and sync_results.

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 indicates this is a read-only status check for a local run_id, and the negative clause about not starting the browser provides a relevant exclusion. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer this over check_browser_session or sync_results, so it stops short of a 5.

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