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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers rich behavioral detail: the meaning of 'reported' versus 'inferred' verdicts, the warning not to state inferred results as fact, the 'stillRunning: true' in-progress interpretation, and the privacy caveat that other users' sessions appear nonexistent. This goes well beyond the minimal safety profile.

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 somewhat long but every sentence earns its place: field list, triggering scenario, verdict confidence semantics, in-progress handling, and access restriction. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and practical entry condition, with no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete. It covers what return values mean, how to interpret ambiguous outcomes, how to handle unfinished runs, and an access caveat. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result accurately.

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 coverage is 100% and the single required parameter sessionId is already described accurately in the schema. The description adds minor context about where the id comes from (the link or the run display) and how it relates to the tool's purpose, but this is not a significant semantic addition beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read one finished automation run' and enumerates the exact fields returned (verdict, test, device/browser, capabilities, duration, video/snapshot existence). It clearly distinguishes this get-by-id tool from sibling tools like automation_sessions_list by tying it to a pasted session id or /automation?session_id=... link.

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 tells the agent when to start here: when the user pastes a session id and asks what happened, why it failed, or how it went. It also gives important context about only reading one's own runs. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full sibling routing.

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