get_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Stored' and 'finished' imply a read-only retrieval of an already-computed result, but auth requirements, failure behavior, and any side effects are not addressed.

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, focused sentence with no filler. The core behavior is stated up front, and every word contributes meaning.

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 that an output schema exists and the tool has only one straightforward parameter, the description is mostly sufficient. It could add error behavior or timing expectations, but for a simple getter it is reasonably complete.

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%, and the description does not explain run_id or its format. The only relevant hint is that it refers to a finished run; this is minimal compensation for the missing schema detail.

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 identifies the verb ('Return') and resource ('stored RunResult'), with a scope qualifier ('of a finished run'). It doesn't explicitly compare against siblings like get_artifact or list_runs, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'finished run' implies it should be called after a run completes, but no exclusions or alternatives like list_runs or get_artifact are mentioned.

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