get_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it helpfully discloses returned data fields but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or how missing/invalid run IDs behave. The 'get' naming implies a read, but behavior is not explicit.

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 compact fragment lists the return fields without filler; it is front-loaded and every word earns its place. No redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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 simple two-param read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key return fields, which is useful. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, it leaves gaps about sibling selection and operational preconditions.

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% for both id and runId, and the description adds no parameter-level detail such as where to obtain runId or whether id must match the run's agent. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents both parameters.

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 identifies a single-run retrieval and enumerates top-level return fields (status, result text, durationMs, branches/PRs), so the resource is clear. It stops short of a specific verb and does not distinguish from siblings like list_runs or get_run_stream.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given; the agent must infer that this is for fetching exactly one run rather than listing runs or streaming one. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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