run_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses long-poll semantics (the call holds until another call finishes, the run stops, or time expires), that `progress` in the result lists what finished meanwhile, that until='settled' behaves differently from the default event mode, and that brief output is regenerated on demand. It does not state permission/auth requirements or confirm read-only nature, but for a status-read tool this is solid disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose, then each optional parameter gets a compact clause with no filler. The middle section is dense but every sentence carries operative detail (cursor source, timeout bounds, hold conditions) rather than restating the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it names the result fields (stage, verdicts, scoreboard, files, cost, `progress`) and explains cursor continuation, which is what an agent needs to poll correctly. Auth/permission context and the meaning of the 'event' enum value are the remaining gaps.

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 define the parameters and it largely does: brief (short regenerated resume brief), wait_seconds (range 1-30 with the recommended value 25), until='settled' semantics, and since (takes the prior `progress.cursor`, or 0 for everything so far). Only the required `run` parameter and the 'event' enum value are left to inference.

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 opens with a concrete verb-and-resource statement — 'State of one run' — and enumerates the returned content (stage reached, panel verdicts, scoreboard, files produced, cost), so an agent knows exactly what this tool answers. It never names a sibling such as list_runs or read_run_file, so the single-run vs. list-run distinction is only implied rather than stated.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use conditions for the optional modes: brief=true when a fresh session needs to re-enter the run, wait_seconds when you want to hold for another call to finish, until='settled' when you want to hold across finished calls, and since for incremental polling. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. when to prefer list_runs or read_run_file) are provided.

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