launch_status

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently states that the tool is non-blocking and reads progress from the run log, which is sufficient for a read-only status tool, though it does not cover error handling or return format.

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 compact and focused, using two short paragraphs to convey purpose and rationale without unnecessary detail. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

For a simple read-only status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the non-waiting nature, the reason for reading from the run log, and how the parameter behaves, covering all necessary context for correct invocation.

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 parameter run_id is fully described: it is optional, indicates the run to read, specifies provenance ('as returned by check, fix or call_provider_tool'), and defines the default behavior ('The newest run when omitted'). This adds meaningful context beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and object: 'Read a run without waiting on it.' This distinguishes it from wait/block operations and implies a non-blocking status read, making the intent unambiguous.

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 explains when to use the tool: when a launch polls DNS and can outlast a single tool call, progress should be read from the run log rather than held open. It provides clear context, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to avoid.

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