Get Actor run

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and idempotent. The description adds significant context beyond that: it explains the return fields (summary describes the past, nextStep prescribes a follow-up), and details the waitSecs behavior including its range and default. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and output semantics without contradicting 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 summary, return explanation, USAGE section, and examples. It is front-loaded and avoids fluff, but the USAGE section partially repeats waitSecs information already covered in the first paragraph, adding slight redundancy. Overall, it is concise and easy to scan.

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 simple read tool with two fully documented parameters and an output schema available, the description covers essential aspects: what it returns, the wait behavior, and usage examples. It explains key return fields (summary, nextStep) that the output schema might not elaborate. While it could mention pagination or error handling, those are likely covered by the output schema, so this 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by contextualizing waitSecs as 'block until terminal (or until the cap elapses)' and providing examples, but it primarily re-emphasizes schema details. Given high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 applies, and the description's additional usage hints justify a 4.

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 gets detailed information about a specific Actor run, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like abort-actor-run (mutation) and call-actor (starting a run) by focusing on read-only retrieval. The mention of return contents (status, storages, stats, etc.) further clarifies its purpose.

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 USAGE section explicitly says to use it to check the status of a run started by any Actor-running tool, and provides guidance on using waitSecs to block for terminal status. It also includes two usage examples covering typical scenarios. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the sibling list (e.g., abort-actor-run) and the read-only annotation make the intended use clear.

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