run_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the tool is read-only (non-destructive) and mentions the queued warning behavior, which is a useful nuance. It doesn't go into details like rate limits or auth, but for a simple status check it provides adequate transparency.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Report progress for the current run'). Every clause adds information: what is reported, the read-only nature, and the additional warning behavior. No waste.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what the response will contain (progress details plus optional warning). It is complete given the simplicity of the tool.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('progress for the current run'). It enumerates what it reports (which selected domains have recorded results, which are missing, findings count), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_domain or record_domain_result.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: it is read-only over the run itself and additionally surfaces queued crash-recovery warnings that haven't been reported yet. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling set contains no similar status tool, so usage is fairly clear.

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