u1_get_run

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does convey a read-only operation and hints that artifact payloads are not returned ('artifact availability'), but it does not disclose behavior for missing runs, errors, or permission requirements. This is acceptable for a simple getter but not fully transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the result, and the scope as efficiently as possible.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool, the description is minimally viable, but it leaves some context unstated: there is no output schema, so the agent must infer what 'compact metadata and artifact availability' looks like, and no guidance is given about how this relates to run listing or searching siblings.

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 schema provides no description for run_id and the description adds little beyond implying that the run is identified by this parameter. The parameter name is self-explanatory, so the low description coverage is only partially compensated; the tool description does not explain formats, uniqueness, or how to obtain a valid run_id.

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 ('Return') with a clear resource ('compact metadata and artifact availability') and a definite scope ('for one run'). This distinguishes it from siblings like u1_list_runs, u1_search_runs, and u1_get_run_logs, since it targets a single run and returns metadata rather than logs.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus related run tools. It implies use for a single run's metadata, but it does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or the relationship to listing, searching, or retrieving run logs.

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