run_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries more burden, but it does disclose the kind of status information returned: round, best score, and stop reason. It implies a read-only status check but does not state permissions, rate behavior, or lifecycle constraints.

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 efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. Every phrase adds information about what status includes.

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 output schema already exists, so the description need not explain return values in detail. However, for a one-parameter status tool with no annotations, it should clarify the id parameter and typical usage context more explicitly.

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 single required parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage and the description does not explain that it identifies the run. The agent can infer it from the tool context, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 states the tool retrieves run status and specifies the useful contents: round, best score so far, and why it stopped once finished. It distinguishes itself conceptually from mutation siblings like start_run and stop_run, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as stop_run or start_run. The phrase 'once finished' implies it can be used to check completion, but the agent is left to infer polling and lifecycle usage.

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