picus_get_run_result

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals API quirks (misspelled field names), conditional population of certain blocks (results only on completion/stop, detection_analysis only when flag is true), and timestamp format (epoch ms). This exceeds minimal expectations.

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, well-structured paragraph with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds essential information (outputs, quirks, conditions). No wasted words or redundancy.

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 simple integer parameters and no output schema, the description covers primary aspects: output items, conditional fields, and API peculiarities. It lacks a structured return format overview but is sufficient for an AI agent to understand what to expect. The score reflects slight room for improvement (e.g., listing all fields retuned).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add meaning beyond parameter names. It only mentions 'specific simulation run' but does not explain the role of run_id and simulation_id (e.g., that they together identify a run). The schema already provides titles 'Run Id' and 'Simulation Id', so the description adds negligible value.

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 action ('Get') and specific resource ('prevention + detection results for a specific simulation run'). It mentions key outputs (security scores, threat counts, attacker-objective counts) and distinguishes from siblings like picus_get_latest_run_result and other get tools that focus on different aspects.

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 usage by requiring simulation_id and run_id for a specific run, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., picus_get_latest_run_result). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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