run_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Report' signals a non-mutating read, and the listed outputs are concrete, but there is no explicit statement about side effects, permissions, or how errors are surfaced beyond the output schema.

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 one efficient sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and output scope, and the key verb and object are front-loaded.

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 one-optional-parameter status tool, the combination of description and schema is nearly complete, and an output schema exists to define returned values. The main omission is explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling status/table tools.

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 documents the single run_id parameter at 100% coverage, including the default behavior ('omit for the last twenty'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('report') and names the resource ('a run') plus the exact information delivered (progress, token spend, errors). It is clear and distinct from siblings like run_estimate by content, though it does not explicitly call out alternatives.

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 when to use the tool: anytime a caller needs run progress, token spend, or stopping errors. It provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of sibling tools, so the context is usable but not fully specified.

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