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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with that by saying 'List'. It adds that the result contains identities and human-review states, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or filtering behavior beyond the schema's enum. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence of eight words with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately scannable.

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?

The tool is simple: one optional parameter, read-only annotations, and an output schema exists. The description covers what is returned, but the complete lack of parameter guidance leaves a meaningful gap for an agent trying to use the status filter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the missing parameter meaning. The only parameter, 'status', is not mentioned anywhere in the description. An agent must infer from the enum and default null that it is an optional filter, but the description adds no value beyond the schema itself.

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 specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('method-card identities and human-review states'). It is immediately distinct from the sibling tools, which are all run/replay operations, so an agent can tell this is the listing tool without confusion.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The purpose itself implies usage for retrieving method-card listings, but the description does not explain when to choose this over siblings or how the optional status parameter affects the listing.

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

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Execute or resume' indicating mutation, but does not describe side effects, whether the call blocks, or what the output contains. The phrase 'operator-configured fixture' hints at a prerequisite but lacks detail on what that entails.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Execute or resume') and includes the key context of the fixture. It is concise and appropriately sized, though it could have added more guidance without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has an output schema but the description does not reference it, leaving the agent unaware of what to expect as a return. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., that a fixture must be configured beforehand) and does not cross-reference sibling tools. For a mutation tool with no annotation support, the description is incomplete.

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 only parameter, run_id, is not described in the description. With 0% schema coverage, the description does not explain what run_id refers to, how to obtain it, or its format. The description implies it identifies a replay-mode run but offers no elaboration, leaving the agent without sufficient meaning for the parameter.

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 clear verb ('Execute or resume') and resource ('replay-mode run'), and mentions the operator-configured fixture, which adds specificity. It distinguishes itself from siblings like alpha_run_stop and alpha_run_status by indicating it is the action tool. However, it does not clarify the distinction between executing a new run and resuming an existing one, which is a minor ambiguity.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention checking run status before resuming, or that this is the sole tool for starting replay runs. The context is implied but not stated, and there are no exclusions or alternative references.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'deterministic' trait, which conveys that the same run_id always produces the same report—valuable context beyond the schema. It also implies the run must exist, though it doesn't elaborate on error handling.

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, efficient sentence with no redundancy. The core purpose and key trait ('deterministic') are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the essential semantics: a deterministic Markdown report for an existing run. It could be more explicit about error cases (e.g., run not found) or prerequisites, but given the low complexity (1 param) and strong annotations, it is reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter run_id. It implies run_id identifies the run ('one existing run'), but does not explain format, constraints, or any additional semantics beyond the schema's type and title. This is minimal compensation for a parameter with no schema-level description.

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 specific verb ('Render') and a specific output ('deterministic Markdown report') for a targeted resource ('one existing run'), making the tool's purpose clear. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like alpha_run_status or alpha_run_stop by focusing on report generation rather than lifecycle operations, though it doesn't explicitly name 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention conditions for use, when not to use it, or alternative tools that might be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat these. It adds context that the tool reads persisted data (status and counts) and requires an existing run, but does not disclose error behavior for missing runs or permission requirements. The description does not contradict annotations.

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, focused sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized and front-loads the key information about reading status and counts for a specific run.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is fairly complete for a read-only tool with one parameter. It does not mention error handling (e.g., what happens if run_id does not exist) or whether the run must be in a specific state, but these are minor gaps given the simplicity of the operation.

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 has one parameter (run_id) with zero description coverage. The description implies run_id identifies the specific run, but provides no format, constraints, or additional semantics. While the purpose is inferable, the description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action (read) and the resource (persisted status and counts for one existing research run). It distinguishes itself as a targeted read for a specific run, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like alpha_run_report or alpha_run_stop. The verb and scope are specific enough for an agent to infer the tool's role.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for checking status, but does not mention alternatives or conditions for selection. An agent would need to infer from context which sibling to call. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It doesn't clarify side effects such as whether the run's status changes, whether the stop is permanent, or if any permissions are required. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap beyond what annotations provide.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and immediately clarifies the target. There is zero waste; every word contributes to meaning, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks essential behavioral context for a mutation: what exactly does 'persist a stop reason' do to the run? Does it mark it as stopped? Is it reversible? These gaps make it incomplete for an agent needing to anticipate consequences.

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 defines a single run_id with no description (0% coverage). The description adds the word 'existing', implying run_id must refer to a valid run, which provides some semantic context. However, it doesn't explain the format, expected source, or error behavior for invalid IDs, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 action ('Persist a fixed MCP-requested stop reason') and the target resource ('one existing run'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like alpha_run_status (status), alpha_run_report (report), and alpha_replay_execute (replay) by being the only stop operation, so an agent can confidently identify its purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. It does not mention that alpha_run_status or alpha_run_report might be better for checking state, or that this is the tool for halting a run. The implied usage is clear from the verb, but explicit routing is absent.

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