Run report

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the default targets the latest run when runId is omitted, that paths inside the response are relative to dir, and that callers can safely poll during an active run. These are non-obvious traits annotations cannot convey. It doesn't cover pagination edge cases or error behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the read-only nature and the core resource, then use cases, then the items/paging behavior. Every clause carries information; nothing is filler.

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?

For a four-param read tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description supplies the run-id default, the paging contract, the safety profile, and concrete decision scenarios. It could be more explicit about the default value of items (problems vs all) and the maximum page size, but otherwise an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 and largely does: it explains the runId default (latest run), the meaning of the items enum ('all' pages through everything), and the role of offset/limit together. It stops short of spelling out the default of items='problems' or the limit/offset ranges, leaving a little room on the table.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — read status of a run — and immediately enumerates exactly what's returned (counts plus failed, review and paused items with messages and evidence). This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like run_list and run_resolve without consulting their schemas.

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 names three concrete use cases: answering 'how did it go', finding an interrupted run before calling run_resume, and polling a long run from another client. It also says it's safe while a run executes, which is precisely the when-to-use guidance an agent needs to choose it over run_list.

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