Check progress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions the non-blocking aspect, but does not clarify read-only nature, error handling for invalid runIds, authentication needs, or whether the call has side effects. This is a significant gap for a status tool.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and directly states the core action and timing attribute. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what 'current state' entails—such as possible status values, whether it includes progress metrics, or how to interpret the result. It leaves the agent without enough information to reliably use the response.

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 for runId is 100% with a clear definition, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the exact resource ('current state of a run') with a distinctive qualifier ('immediately, without waiting'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like opencode_wait and opencode_result, which imply waiting or final results.

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 'without waiting' gives clear context for when to use this tool (non-blocking status checks) versus waiting for completion. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of full marks.

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