Get full details of a simulation run including timing and results.
Returns the complete run record: status, progress, timing (start/end timestamps, duration), compute details (backend, instance type, cost), mesh info, error messages, and result log. Use get_run_status for lightweight polling; use this for final results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | The run ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists the return fields (status, progress, timing, compute details, mesh info, error messages, result log), effectively conveying this is a read operation without explicit side effects. It doesn't mention authorization or failure behavior, but for a 'get' tool the disclosure is strong.
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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary, followed by a concise bullet-like list of returned content and a usage tip. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.
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 tool is simple (one parameter) and an output schema exists, but the description still provides a thorough overview of the return values, making it complete for an agent to understand the tool's behavior. The guidance to use get_run_status for polling fills the only likely contextual gap.
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 schema already documents run_id with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra semantics beyond 'run_id' being the identifier, but given a single, self-explanatory parameter, this is adequate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('full details of a simulation run') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_run_status, making its purpose unmistakable. The phrase 'including timing and results' further narrows scope.
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?
Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use get_run_status for lightweight polling; use this for final results.' This clearly states when to use this tool versus an alternative, which is model behavior for this dimension.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: project listing vs. details, run polling vs. full details, and separate lifecycle operations (start/cancel/retry). No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_projects, get_run, start_simulation) with clear verbs. The compound get_run_status is still predictable.
9 tools is a well-scoped size for a domain focused on managing flood simulation runs. Each tool covers a necessary operation without redundancy.
The run lifecycle is complete: start, poll, retrieve results, cancel, retry. Minor gap is the lack of scenario creation or building tools, but the server appears to operate on pre-existing scenarios.
