Run status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the trailing 'Read-only' is essentially redundant reinforcement rather than new information. The description does add value by naming the observable states (running/finished) and the shape of results (passed/failed counts or job result), but says nothing about retention of finished runs or behavior for an unknown/expired runId.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: resource and key first, then the possible outcomes, then the safety tag. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by sketching the return payload (state plus counts or job result). For a one-parameter read tool that is close to sufficient; only edge-case behavior for invalid or expired runIds is missing.

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?

With one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description does contribute by explaining that runId spans macro runs, warm-ups, and background jobs. It still omits where runId comes from, accepted format, and the 3-100 character constraint that exists only in 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?

States a specific verb-and-resource pair (status of a run) and broadens the resource to three concrete job types: macro run, warm-up, or background job, keyed by runId. That makes it clearly distinct from run_macro/stop_run, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with lookalikes such as get_activity.

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 phrase 'by runId' implies the precondition that the caller already holds an identifier produced by a starting tool, and the read-only nature suggests polling. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative for cases where no runId is available.

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