get_run_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Reveals that missing tracked run returns 'idle' with results.json metadata and explicitly states it does not inspect unrelated OS processes. This is transparent about scope, but lacks details on exact response structure.

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?

Two sentences: front-loaded with core purpose, then concise details. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should hint at return format. It mentions 'idle with current results.json metadata' but does not describe the status field or any possible values. Lacks some completeness for a return-type 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?

Schema provides 100% coverage. Description adds context by linking workingDirectory to runId usage and explaining fallback behavior. Adds value beyond schema definitions.

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 clearly states 'Return status for a tracked Playwright run' and distinguishes between two usage modes (specific runId vs latest for workingDirectory). This separates it from sibling tools like get_failed_tests or get_test_attachment.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use each parameter: pass runId for a specific run, omit for latest workingDirectory. Also clarifies behavior when no tracked run exists. Does not explicitly exclude scenarios, but the guidance is clear enough.

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