get_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool loads several artifact types, suggesting a read-only retrieval operation, but it does not mention behavior for missing run_ids, permissions, or side effects. The listed artifacts give useful context beyond the tool name.

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, dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and enumerates the loaded artifacts in a compact list, giving high information density in minimal space.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool, the description is mostly complete: it states the input (existing run_id) and the output content categories. It does not describe return format or error behavior, but those are less critical given the simplicity of the tool and the absence of an output schema.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds the meaningful qualifier 'existing' to run_id, clarifying that the parameter must reference an already-created run. However, it does not explain the expected format, origin, or how to obtain a valid run_id.

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 uses a specific verb ('Load') and names concrete resources: manifest, config, metrics, files, and errors. It clearly targets an existing run_id, making the tool's purpose understandable, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_trades or compare_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 phrase 'for an existing run_id' implies the tool should be used after a run has been created and cannot be used for a new run. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling retrieval tools like get_trades or compare_runs.

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