dashai_get_run

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

Despite annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds important behavioral context: metrics are empty for unfinished runs (not an error) and the return format (JSON with model parameters, status, and per-split metrics). This enhances transparency beyond the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, followed by a use-case note, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers the relevant context: the return value's structure, the dependency on run completion, and the absence of errors for empty metrics. No significant gaps are present.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the nested 'params' structure containing run_id and describes run_id as the run identifier. While it repeats the schema's 'run id' description, it clarifies the nesting and provides enough context for a single-param tool. It could add how to obtain run_id (e.g., from list_runs), but it's sufficient.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Returns the configuration and metrics of a training run.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like dashai_job_status (status only) and dashai_list_runs (list only) by focusing on full run details. The tool's role is 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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'This is where results are read once dashai_job_status says `finished`.' This instructs when to use it and implies the alternative workflow with job_status, while also warning that incomplete runs yield empty metrics. This is clear usage direction.

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