Check the status of a background two-AI collaboration task by run ID and retrieve the final report once it finishes.
查询后台协作任务状态；完成后返回最终报告。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the response shape changes with task state, returning the final report only on completion. It omits polling cadence, terminal/error states, and whether partial progress is ever returned.
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?
Two short clauses, front-loaded with the action and then the completion behavior; there is no filler. It is lean to the point of under-specification, but nothing is padded or wasted.
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 single-parameter read-only status check with annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose and the key return behavior. It is still incomplete on how to obtain run_id and what non-terminal responses contain, which matters for a polling 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required run_id param has no description in either the schema or the description text. The phrase about a background collaboration task weakly implies run_id identifies that task, but the agent gets no format, no source (list_runs/start_workflow), and no validity guidance.
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: queries the status of a background collaboration task and returns the final report once done. That is clear enough to act on, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling list_runs, which an agent could easily confuse with this lookup-by-id tool.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_runs or start_workflow. The agent must infer that run_id comes from a previously started run, and nothing tells it when polling is appropriate versus when to list runs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.