get_run_status

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

With no annotations available, the description correctly implies a read-only operation by stating it retrieves status. It lists the returned fields, though it does not explicitly mention that the tool has no side effects. Overall, it is sufficiently transparent for an agent.

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 delivers essential information without superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and outputs.

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 (2 parameters, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers the output but omits parameter details. It is adequate for a basic understanding but lacks completeness regarding input semantics.

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. However, it does not explain the parameters (run_id, project_root). While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, an agent may need more context about formats or values. This is a significant gap.

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 tool retrieves the status of a run from SQLite, listing possible statuses (running/done/failed) and additional data (turn count, duration). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_run_log or get_run_report.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_run_log or compare_runs. The description does not provide context for prerequisites or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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