invariance_get_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool is an alias of another tool. It provides no details about side effects, return shape, auth requirements, or failure modes; the getter behavior is only inferable from naming.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely informative. The single sentence earns some weight as an alias pointer but leaves out the essential content an agent needs.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and one required parameter, the description is not independently usable. It omits what the tool returns, what an id refers to, and how this alias differs from the canonical sibling; the agent must resolve another tool's definition to proceed.

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?

The description adds no meaning to the single required 'id' parameter, which remains a bare string in the schema. The tool name makes it inferable that the id refers to a run, but the description itself does not explain it.

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 the tool as an alias of invariance_run_get, which by name implies retrieving a run, but it never states the underlying operation or what a run is. It relies entirely on the agent recognizing the sibling tool's behavior.

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 guidance is given about when to use this alias instead of invariance_run_get or other run-related tools. 'Alias of' implies identical behavior but does not explain when either should be preferred or when to avoid it.

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