get_run_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It lists the exact data returned (iterations, cost, tokens, flagged calls, completion promise) and implies a read-only operation. No side effects or authentication needs are mentioned, but the simplicity of a status check makes this acceptable.

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?

Two sentences: the first lists the output content concisely, the second provides the use case. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (iterations, cost, tokens, flagged calls, completion promise) and the tool's purpose. It could mention error behavior or format, but as a simple status tool it is sufficiently complete.

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%—the only parameter (run_id) is well-described. The description adds no further parameter details beyond identifying the run, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool returns 'Status of one loop run' with specific data fields (iterations, cost, tokens, flagged calls, completion status). It distinguishes from siblings like list_runs and get_session by focusing on a single run's progress.

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?

Explicitly states that 'loop runners and agents can use this to decide whether to continue iterating', providing a clear use case. However, it does not mention when not to use it or direct alternatives among siblings.

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