CLI Run Status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool is for live polling, can be called repeatedly, and is not intended for completed runs. This goes beyond what annotations express.

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?

Three compact sentences cover what the tool returns, when to use it, and what context is required. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter read-only polling tool, the description is complete: it names the inputs implicitly via the schema, lists the returned information, distinguishes the sibling tool, and notes the project-context prerequisite. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the description enumerates the key response fields.

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 coverage is 100%, and the single parameter testRunId is already documented as 'Public Id (Guid) of the test run'. The description does not add further parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Poll the live progress of a test run', then enumerates the exact data returned. It also explicitly contrasts itself with get_test_run, so an agent can distinguish this live-status tool from the finished-run tool.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: 'Meant for watching a run that is still going; use get_test_run once it has finished.' It also states the prerequisite that project context is required, which is important operational guidance.

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