get_function_run

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only states the fetch operation without disclosing safety (e.g., read-only nature), error handling, rate limits, or auth requirements. This is minimal transparency.

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 9-word sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word is necessary and contributes to clarity with no redundancy.

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 fetch tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details about the return value (e.g., full run object), error conditions, and no behavioral context from annotations. It covers the basic operation but is not thorough.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds 'one durable function run by fnrun_ id', slightly reinforcing the run_id format, but adds little beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'one durable function run', specifying identification by 'fnrun_ id'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_function_runs' (listing) and 'cancel_function_run' (cancellation).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description only implies retrieval of a specific run, and the sibling context suggests use when a single run is needed, but alternatives like 'list_function_runs' are not mentioned.

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