Get AgentFEM run status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns 'any AgentFEM execution evidence currently available,' which hints at partial/streaming results, but doesn't elaborate on what 'currently available' means or how status values behave.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action. It earns its place by adding the 'AgentFEM execution evidence' detail, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 has an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate for a simple read operation. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no guidance on how to identify a run, an agent may still be uncertain about what values to pass for 'path' and 'job_id'.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'one submitted run' but does not explain that 'path' and 'job_id' are required to identify the run, nor does it clarify their roles or format. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's bare property names.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('one submitted run's status'), and adds the AgentFEM execution evidence detail. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like submit_run or get_result_summary, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling.

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 description implies this is for reading status of a single run, which is a clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus get_result_summary or inspect_project, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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