Run status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states it takes no input, touches no browser, and discloses host-dependent rendering (MCP Apps pane vs. plain text) plus the instruction to pass on the 'Live view:' address. It stops short of explicitly declaring the operation read-only/idempotent, which would fully close the gap.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the output contains before moving to when to call it and how it behaves across hosts. Every sentence carries information, though the phrasing ('the person running you how the run stands') is slightly indirect for a zero-param tool.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must supply the return shape itself, and it does: sessions, objectives, tasks, findings by severity, coverage, and the live-view address. An agent has everything it needs to call this correctly and describe the result.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'Takes no input,' which matches the empty schema and prevents an agent from inventing arguments.

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 names a concrete resource (the run's status) and enumerates exactly what it reports: per-session objective and current task, open findings by severity, coverage, and the live-view address. It implicitly separates itself from the browser-action siblings via 'touches no browser,' but never distinguishes itself from close cousins like scout_status_poll, scout_coverage, or scout_report.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Call it when the user wants to watch or asks how the run is going.' That is clear usage context, but there is no when-not guidance and no named alternative for the overlapping status/coverage/report tools.

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