Get run result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint/openWorldHint false, so 'Read-only' is partly redundant. The value-add is the return-shape disclosure and the word 'compact', which signals a summarized rather than exhaustive payload — meaningful given there is no output 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?

A single sentence plus a safety lead-in, front-loaded and with zero filler. Every clause either qualifies safety or names returned content.

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?

With one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description does the necessary work of sketching the return payload. It is slightly short on distinguishing this compact view from get_run_results/get_run_report, but nothing required to invoke the call correctly is missing.

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% and the single 'run' parameter is documented in the schema with accepted forms (slug or numeric id). The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get run', 'a compact result for one run') and enumerates the payload (status, counts, release gates, AI verdict, top problems). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the close siblings get_run_results and get_run_report, leaving the agent to guess which run-scoped reader to pick.

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 phrase 'ids for get_finding' is an explicit hand-off to a sibling, which is genuine routing guidance. But there is no statement of when to use this over list_runs, get_run_results, get_run_report or wait_for_run, so the when-to-use decision is only implied.

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