project_status

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

No annotations provided, so description should disclose that this is a read-only operation. It doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or error handling, leaving important behavioral gaps.

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?

One short sentence, concise. Could be restructured to front-load the key distinction (project vs run status), but overall efficient.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return format and content. It doesn't, leaving agents uncertain about what 'status' entails. Also lacks error context.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no extra semantic value beyond what's in the schema, so 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 it returns project or run status, and distinguishes between two modes based on run_id presence. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like review_run or inspect_run.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like inspect_run or review_run. The description implies general status retrieval but gives no context for decision-making.

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