get_workflow_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but does not mention error behavior (e.g., what happens if the run ID does not exist), permission requirements, or any side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the parameter schema.

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, clear sentence: 'Get a workflow run by ID'. It is concise, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no extraneous words. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the tool returns or any response format. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify the return value (e.g., 'Returns the workflow run details'), but it omits that entirely.

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 100% (the single parameter 'runId' has a schema description: 'The ID of the workflow run to retrieve'). According to the guidelines, when coverage is high (over 80%), the baseline score is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states the action ('Get') and the resource ('a workflow run'), with the parameter 'runId' specifying the identifier. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'list_workflow_runs' that retrieve multiple runs, or 'cleanup_workflow_runs' which performs a different operation.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare with siblings such as 'list_workflow_runs' or 'get_next_workflow_tasks'. The agent must infer usage solely from the name.

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