martin_get_run

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

The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already establish that this is a safe read operation, and the description's wording is consistent with them. The description adds the high-level output categories but does not disclose behavior like default run-store selection, handling of missing files, or edge cases around file vs loopId.

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, focused sentence with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the output scope is compactly listed.

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 read-only, low-complexity tool, the description plus fully documented schema and output schema provide sufficient context. It could be slightly stronger by clarifying how runsDir interacts with the oneOf cases, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so file, loopId, latest, and runsDir are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('Load') and resource ('one Martin run'), and enumerates the summarized output categories: budget, cost, verification, artifact, and canonical path. It clearly identifies single-run retrieval, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like martin_inspect or martin_get_attempt.

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 implies this tool is appropriate when a single run's summary is needed, and the input schema's oneOf defines the lookup modes. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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