get_ui_diff_run_status

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic purpose. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, any authentication needs, rate limits, or potential error states. Given the lack of annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context.

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 concise sentence that clearly states the core function. It front-loads the purpose with no wasted words, but could benefit from a second sentence providing additional context.

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?

With 2 required parameters and an output schema present, the description is minimally complete: it states the function but does not elaborate on the status values or the context of the run. The output schema reduces some burden, but the agent lacks guidance on interpreting the response.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage; parameters 'runId' and 'projectRoot' have only type and minLength constraints. The description adds no additional meaning to these parameters, so the agent must infer their purpose from the tool name alone.

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 it returns the status of a background UI diff run, with a specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'status of a background UI diff run started by start_ui_diff_run'. This distinguishes it from siblings like start_ui_diff_run (starting) and read_ui_diff_report (reading the report).

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 usage after starting a run via start_ui_diff_run, but does not explicitly provide when to use or not use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives or prerequisites. It relies on context from the sibling name.

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