Get atlas run status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the return values (status, stage, coverage, stats) and their semantics, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 concise (about 50 words) and front-loaded with the purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, return details, and usage guidance. No redundant 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?

The description fully explains the output including status, stage, coverage metrics (must_rate, surface_rate, gap_count, gap list), and stats (files, surface, chunks, pages). It also provides usage context. With an output schema present, the description covers all necessary details.

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 input schema has only one parameter (run_id) with 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains it. The description mentions 'run_id (view+)', which might hint at required permissions, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 reads an atlas run's status and coverage by run_id, specifying the verb ('read') and resource ('atlas run status'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'atlas_run' which starts the run, and details the output.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use to follow a run started by atlas_run to completion and judge whether the docs are complete.' This provides clear context and implies not to use it before starting a run, with 'atlas_run' as the complementary tool.

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