mgnify_get_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior (e.g., read-only nature, error handling, or rate limits). It merely states the operation and gives no information about side effects, return structure, or failure modes.

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, well-formed sentence that is immediately comprehensible. It is concise and to the point with no unnecessary words.

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 simple 'get by ID' operation, the description is minimal and lacks any mention of the output format, potential errors, or how this fits into the broader API context. Given the absence of annotations, more context would be expected.

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 mentions 'accession' and gives an example, but this is identical to the schema's own parameter description. It adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so its contribution is redundant.

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 ('one run'), and provides a concrete example of an accession ('ERR1234567'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool versus the sibling tools such as mgnify_list_runs or mgnify_sample_runs. It only implies specificity with 'one run,' but offers no direct guidance on selection criteria.

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