get_run_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral limitation ('does not inspect unrelated OS processes') and explains the fallback behavior when no tracked run exists ('returns idle with current results.json metadata'). It doesn't enumerate possible status values or confirm read-only nature, but the negative statement and fallback provide meaningful transparency.

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 two sentences, starts with the core purpose, and efficiently conveys the parameter alternatives and edge-case behavior in the second sentence. 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?

For a simple status-check tool with no output schema, the description covers the main invocation scenarios, the fallback, and explicitly scopes what it does not do. It could specify possible status values, but the mention of results.json metadata gives enough context for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both runId and workingDirectory, including their relationship. The description paraphrases the runId/workingDirectory conditional logic but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Therefore, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: 'Return status for a tracked Playwright run.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from generic process inspection by noting it only handles tracked runs, not unrelated OS processes. This separates it from siblings like run_tests and get_failed_tests.

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 gives explicit conditional guidance: pass runId for a specific background run, or omit it to use workingDirectory for the latest tracked run. It also explains the edge case when no tracked run exists. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or say when not to use this tool, so it's clear but not fully comprehensive.

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