runtime_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only states 'Read', which implies a non-mutating operation. It does not explain whether the call blocks, triggers lazy initialization, or what progress looks like, and 'genuine lazy' is unexplained.

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 short and front-loaded, but the word 'genuine' is unnecessary noise and 'lazy' is ambiguous. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, but not every word earns its place.

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, so the description should explain how progress is reported or when the setup is considered complete. It provides neither, leaving the agent unable to interpret the result or decide when to call the tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. Baseline 4 applies because schema coverage is effectively complete.

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 specific verb ('Read') and a clear resource ('container-runtime setup progress'), which is enough to distinguish it from unrelated siblings like terminal_execute and read_file. The odd phrase 'genuine lazy' adds confusion but does not obscure the core 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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to poll this status, what triggers setup, or how this tool relates to terminal_execute or other setup commands.

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