get_scout_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 only hints at behavior via 'job-style retrieval', which suggests asynchronous retrieval, but doesn't disclose side effects, permissions, error handling, or polling behavior. This is too thin for a tool without annotations.

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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant details.

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 the simplicity of the tool and the existence of an output schema, the description is adequate but misses the opportunity to contextualize the run_id's origin (e.g., from run_scout_agent or list_scout_agents). It provides the essential retrieval context but lacks a pointer to the scout agent workflow.

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 0% for run_id. The description merely mentions 'by run_id' without adding format, source, or relationship to other tools. It doesn't compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the parameter semantics to inference from the name alone.

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 'Fetch' and the resource 'previous scout agent run' identified by run_id. It also adds 'job-style retrieval' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_scout_agent and list_scout_agents.

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 retrieve a completed run when you have a run_id, fitting within the scout agent workflow. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear for a simple retrieval tool.

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