get_runtime_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description nevertheless adds genuine behavioral context: no script is dispatched to Illustrator, no Computer Use, and the important constraint that uncertain executions must not be replayed. It omits return-format detail, but the safety profile is well covered.

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?

It is short and front-loads the core action, but it reads as three disconnected fragments ('No Computer Use' especially) with choppy structure. It is concise without being cleanly organized.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of conveying what state is returned, but it never explains the shape or meaning of the returned policy/ownership information. Adequate for a no-param read tool, but the return behavior is left unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter guidance is required.

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 verb (Read) and two resources (background policy, cross-process execution ownership), and distinguishes itself from run_script via 'without sending a script to Illustrator.' However, the phrasing is abstract and jargon-heavy, and it does not map cleanly onto the tool name 'get_runtime_status,' leaving the actual purpose somewhat opaque.

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?

It implies usage through 'without sending a script to Illustrator' and the caution 'An uncertain execution must not be replayed,' suggesting this is a pre-check tool. But it names no explicit alternative (e.g., recover_execution, a sibling clearly in scope) and gives no clear when-to-call conditions.

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