get_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait: the call is free of credit cost, which matters for repeated polling. It says nothing about read-only semantics, authentication, or what happens when run_id is unknown or the run is still in progress.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the return contents are front-loaded. 'Charge' on its own is slightly ambiguous, reading as either the cost incurred by the run or a billing field, which costs it a point.

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?

It is a simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, so the description only needs to cover what it returns and how to call it. The return contents are covered and the cost behavior is disclosed, but the sole parameter is entirely unexplained and there is no guidance on polling or error cases.

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 single parameter run_id is documented nowhere, and the description does not compensate by explaining its format or where it comes from. For a one-parameter tool it is the only semantic gap, but it is a complete one.

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 names the resource ('Run') and the three things it returns (status, charge, outputs), which is more specific than a bare name restatement. It does not differentiate from the closest sibling, get_run_assets, which also exposes run-level data, so the boundary between the two is left for the agent to infer.

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?

'Spends no credits' implies it is cheap and safe to call, which hints at polling use, but the description never states when to use this tool versus get_run_assets or the other run-related siblings. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative named.

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