seedfast_run_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool reads local in-memory state, requires no SEEDFAST_API_KEY, is safe to call repeatedly, and returns a detailed text block including error and summary data. This gives an agent full confidence about side effects and polling behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and return contents, then usage policy, then next-step guidance. Every sentence contributes distinct value: what it returns, when/how to use it, auth behavior, and follow-up actions. No filler or 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description needed to explain return values and operational behavior—and it does. It covers the returned fields, polling safety, auth requirements, and what to do based on each terminal state. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this tool correctly.

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 schema already describes the sole parameter as the run ID returned by seedfast_run, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context that the status lookup is "by ID" but does not add format, constraints, or additional parameter meaning beyond the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Reports the current state and progress of a seeding run by ID." It clearly identifies this as a status/polling tool, and the content distinguishes it from siblings like seedfast_run (which starts a run) and seedfast_run_cancel (which cancels one).

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 explicitly says "Use this to poll an async seedfast_run" and states it is safe to call repeatedly. It also provides post-call decision guidance for running/failed/completed states. It does not explicitly name alternatives to exclude, but the usage context is clear enough.

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