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. It hints at read-style retrieval modes but never states that the operation is read-only, what happens for an invalid run_id, whether 'verify' performs expensive recomputation, or how output differs per section. Most behavioral traits remain undisclosed.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, which is good, but it is under-specified rather than truly concise — the terseness leaves the reader without a verb or any front-loaded statement of what the call returns by default.

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 annotations, no output schema, an enum largely undocumented, and a required run_id with no description, the definition is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It should at minimum say that it fetches one run by id, that section defaults to summary, and roughly what each section returns.

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 50% and the enum has ten values, yet the schema documents only summary, methods, and verify. The description partially compensates by naming results, methods text, and checksum verification, but the remaining sections (assumptions, config, assignment, scenarios, resolved, holidays, all) are undocumented in both places, and run_id has no explanation at all.

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 enumerates what get_run can return (results, methods text, a manifest section, checksum verification), which conveys the resource, but it is a noun phrase with no verb and never states that it retrieves a run by id. It also does not distinguish itself from siblings like plot_run or list_runs, so the purpose is inferable but not explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as list_runs (to find a run) or plot_run (to visualize one). An agent must guess that this is the retrieval tool and that run_id must come from elsewhere.

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