duddy_run_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does well by enumerating what the result contains (node, step counters, completed items, ETA, errors), which substitutes for the absent output schema. It omits whether the call is strictly read-only, what happens when no run exists or the run already ended, and whether the status is live or a cached snapshot.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the returned fields, the second gives the usage trigger. Nothing is redundant and the reading order is sensible. The field enumeration is dense but each item is informative rather than filler.

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, the description correctly compensates by listing the intended return values, so an agent knows what to expect. Gaps remain around the run-vs-plan distinction relative to duddy_plan_status and around failure modes (no run, run finished, run aborted), which matter for a status tool in a 15-tool family.

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. The description implies the target is implicitly 'the current run' rather than an arbitrary run identified by ID, which is the one piece of semantic meaning worth adding beyond the empty schema.

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 a specific resource and scope: current run progress, current node, step N of M, completed steps, ETA, and error presence. The verb is implicitly a status query rather than an action, but the field list makes the tool's function unmistakable. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling status tools such as duddy_plan_status or duddy_events.

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 gives two concrete invocation triggers: the user asks 'where is it now', or the agent wants to confirm whether a task has finished. That is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of a 5 because no when-not condition or named alternative (e.g. duddy_plan_status for plan-level vs run-level state) is provided.

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