Check a background run

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and, notably, readOnlyHint=false; the description explains why by disclosing that cancel terminates the run and that waitSeconds blocks. It also states the default-run fallback, which annotations cannot express. It does not restate the schema's 55s wait cap or describe failure/error states, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the return shape (progress vs final result), then the parameter semantics, then the default. No filler, though the semicolon-chain style is telegraphic and the waitSeconds 55s bound lives only in the schema.

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, the description correctly fills the gap by naming the return payload (tests done/total, failures so far, final result) and the downstream relationship with get-failure. Missing only error/timeout behavior and what a cancelled run returns.

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 coverage is only 33% (just waitSeconds), so the description must carry runId and cancel. It does: 'cancel stops it' defines cancel, and 'Default: the latest run' tells the agent runId is an optional selector. It stops short of 5 only because runId's accepted format/scope (e.g., run id vs test id) is left implicit.

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+resource (retrieve progress or final result of a run-test background run) and names the two siblings it relates to: run-test produces the run, get-failure consumes the result. An agent can place it precisely in the workflow without opening any schema.

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?

Implies the polling workflow (progress vs final result), explains that waitSeconds blocks and cancel aborts, and states the default (latest run) for the no-arg case. It never explicitly says when NOT to use it versus get-failure or list-tests, so it stops short of a 5.

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