trw_status

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates read-only behavior by saying 'report' and describes auto-detection of run_path. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or address permissions/rate limits, which would elevate transparency.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections: main purpose, use cases, input, and output. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no extraneous information.

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?

Given only one parameter and no output schema, the description lists expected output fields and provides usage context. It could mention error conditions (e.g., run not found) but is otherwise adequate for a status reporting tool.

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 sole parameter run_path is explained: 'path to the run directory. Auto-detects from pin if None.' This adds meaning beyond the schema type and default, clarifying behavior when omitted.

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 clearly states the tool reports the active run's phase, wave progress, shard state, and last activity. It uses a specific verb ('report') and resource ('active run's state'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like trw_checkpoint or trw_adopt_run.

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?

Explicitly provides two use cases: resuming after context compaction/session restart, and deciding whether to checkpoint/advance/re-delegate. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the provided guidance is clear and actionable.

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