agy_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful nuance that the status is 'current or terminal' and that state is read from a configured artifact directory, but it says nothing about what is returned or what statuses exist.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key qualifier ('current or terminal') is positioned early. Minor jargon ('configured artifact directory') without explanation keeps it from a 5.

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 indicate what a status looks like or which states are possible; 'current or terminal' hints at this but leaves the return shape undefined. For a simple one-parameter read tool this is 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single run_id parameter has no description in the schema. The phrase 'one run's ... status' implies the parameter identifies a specific run, but no format, source, or expected value for run_id is given, so compensation is only partial.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (one run's status), with the qualifier 'current or terminal' that tells an agent this is a status-polling read keyed to a run. It distinguishes adequately from write-ish siblings like agy_run/agy_cancel, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with agy_history.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it has a run_id and wants that run's state. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to alternatives such as agy_history for listing past runs.

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