get-actor-run

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds critical behavioral context: explains that waitSecs controls blocking (up to 45s), returns immediately if already terminal, and describes the returned object's structure. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear first-line summary, bullet-pointed return fields, a USAGE section, and examples. Every sentence is purposeful; no fluff or redundancy. The critical info is front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, read-only with optional blocking), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, parameter behavior, return summary, and a warning about widget polling. It is complete and self-contained.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters (runId and waitSecs). The description reinforces this (e.g., 'Pass waitSecs > 0 to block') but doesn't add new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline 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 starts with 'Get detailed information about a specific Actor run,' which clearly states the verb (get) and resource (Actor run). It elaborates on return fields (status, storages, stats, summary, nextStep), distinguishing it from siblings like abort-actor-run (modifies state) and call-actor (initiates).

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 'Use to check the status of a run started with call-actor.' Provides guidance on waitSecs: waiting up to a cap, and warns 'If call-actor-widget or get-actor-run-widget rendered a widget for this run, do NOT poll here — the widget self-polls.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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