get_automation_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. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, and 'including its step-by-step trace' discloses what the response contains. However, it doesn't explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, error handling, or permission requirements. For a simple GET this is adequate but not thorough.

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?

A single, tightly constructed sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and resource, then appends the differentiating trace detail and endpoint. Every element earns its place.

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 two-parameter GET with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It identifies the resource, the trace, and the endpoint. It doesn't describe the response format in detail, but the mention of 'step-by-step trace' gives the agent sufficient context to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already well documented. The description's endpoint '/automations/:id/runs/:runId' adds a modest clarification of the id/run_id relationship, but it doesn't add meaningful semantic value 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 verb 'Retrieve', the specific resource 'a single automation run', and adds the distinctive detail 'including its step-by-step trace'. It also includes the exact endpoint, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_automation_runs.

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 provides clear context: use this when you need a single run's full details. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the word 'single' implies contrast with the listing sibling. No exclusionary guidance is given, so it stops 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.