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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the brief contains and that it does not apply fixes, but says nothing about auth requirements, failure behavior for an invalid runId, or result size. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then one long enumerating sentence. Every clause earns its place by naming a distinct part of the brief, though the single run-on sentence is dense and could be broken up.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return and does so thoroughly by listing the brief's components. It omits failure/auth behavior for the single required param but is otherwise complete for this read-only 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?

One parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents runId. The description only implies that the run should be a failed/problem run, adding no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('get the fix brief for a run') and enumerates the brief's contents (stack, verified assertions, recent changes, exact error, prior-failure status, search evidence). It is distinguishable from get_run by being a diagnostic bundle, but it never names get_run or request_ai_fix to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition ('for a run that failed or found a problem') and an explicit boundary against apply_fix ('applying a fix stays with the user'). No explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for the read-only diagnostic path, so it falls short of a 5.

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