atlas_get_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a useful behavioral trait beyond the schema: the operation is zero-cost (零成本). However, it says nothing about read-only nature, auth requirements, or rate limits, so behavioral coverage remains partial.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and followed by the returned fields and the cost note. No wasted text, though it is quite terse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly required, and the tool is a simple single-parameter getter. Missing usage context and parameter detail against zero annotation coverage leave it only minimally adequate.

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 sole parameter run_id has no documentation in either schema or description. The phrase '某次运行' only implicitly maps to run_id and gives no format or provenance (e.g., where to obtain the id), so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (查) and resource (某次运行的动态状态) and enumerates the returned data: dynamic status, per-node model and tokens, and ledger path. An agent can distinguish it from the list-style siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. This is clear but not sibling-differentiated in text.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as atlas_list_runs or atlas_cancel_run. Usage must be inferred from '查某次运行'. 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.