get_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what it reports (state, activity, gate report, variables) but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires specific permissions, or what happens if the run does not exist. It also does not mention any side effects or performance implications. For a read-type tool, this is a partial disclosure but lacks depth.

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 a single sentence that is concise and lists the key content of the report. However, it is slightly terse and could benefit from a bit more detail on the scope, but for a simple tool it is efficient.

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?

Given there are no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It identifies the tool's purpose and output components but omits critical context such as whether this is a read-only operation, error conditions for missing/invalid process_instance_id, or when this tool should be used relative to siblings like 'list_processes' or 'engine_status'. An agent may not know if this requires a running process or if it returns historical data.

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 has zero description coverage; the parameter 'process_instance_id' has no description. The tool description implies this is the run identifier, but does not explain format, source, or how to obtain it. With only one parameter and no schema documentation, the description should at least provide guidance on what constitutes a valid process_instance_id; it does not.

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 reports the state, current activity, gate report, and variables of a run. This distinctly separates it from siblings like list_processes (listing) or start_release (starting), and it specifies a precise resource ('a run') with a clear action (report). The verb 'report' is specific and the content is enumerated.

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 implies this tool is used to fetch details about a run, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's for a specific run identified by process_instance_id, nor does it exclude scenarios like checking engine status or listing gates. The usage is implied but not formally guided.

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