run_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Read', which implies non-mutating behavior, but does not disclose any permissions, error handling, potential cost, or what 'durable lifecycle state' means. This is minimal transparency beyond the tool's name.

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 sentence, front-loaded with 'Read', and contains no superfluous words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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?

While the output schema likely covers return values, the description lacks workflow context. It does not explain where 'durable lifecycle state' or 'provenance paths' come from, and it lacks usage alternatives. For a tool with no annotations and a 0% schema description coverage, this is inadequate.

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 clarify parameters. It implies run_id identifies the run via 'for one run', but does not explain project_path at all. No additional meaning is provided for either parameter beyond what the schema already shows.

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 reads durable lifecycle state and provenance paths for a single run. The verb 'read' and resource 'run' distinguish it from sibling tools like run_execute or run_control, and from project_status which targets projects.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention how it relates to run_prepare, run_execute, project_status, or other siblings, nor does it indicate whether it should be used after a run completes or during execution.

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