architect_runtime_status

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only added value is enumerating the three report sections (run state, agent lifecycle, pending waits), which is useful because no output schema exists. It says nothing about scope of scanning, cost, or freshness of the data.

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 compact clause with zero filler, and the highest-value item (run state) is front-loaded. The extreme terseness edges into under-specification, but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only status reporter with no output schema, the description does list the three result sections, which is the minimum an agent needs to know what comes back. However, terms like 'pending wait' and 'lifecycle state' are never defined, and the omission of a verb leaves the operation model implicit.

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 description coverage is 100%: both 'run' (defaults to latest) and 'workspace' (root holding sdd-workspace.yml) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource set (run state, per-agent lifecycle state, pending waits) but is a noun fragment with no verb, so it reads as a content list rather than an action. It doesn't distinguish itself from close siblings such as architect_runs_observe or architect_runtime_plan, which an agent would likely confuse it with.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the many runtime siblings (architect_runtime_plan, architect_runtime_next, architect_runtime_tick, architect_runs_observe). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing.

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