run_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Status' strongly implies a read-only inspection tool, and it discloses the categories of information returned, but it does not explicitly state side-effect behavior, permissions, or whether it triggers any processing.

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 a single front-loaded phrase with no filler, and it immediately names the resource and the informative contents. It is slightly under-specified but not padded or disorganized.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so return-value explanation is not required. However, the description leaves gaps around the run identifier semantics and when to choose this over list_runs or doctor, making it adequate but incomplete.

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?

There is one required parameter, 'run', with 0% schema description coverage. The description only says 'một run' and adds no identifier format, source, or lookup guidance, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific resource and verb-like purpose: it reports the status of a run and enumerates what the status contains (source, existing files, step history, next recommended step). This is clear enough to distinguish it from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with list_runs or doctor.

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 phrase 'Trạng thái một run' implies this is used when checking a run's current state, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of siblings such as list_runs or doctor. Usage is therefore only implied.

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