get_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Read' accurately discloses that this is a non-mutating operation, which is the primary behavioral trait. However, it adds nothing beyond that — no mention of error behavior for missing runs, auth needs, latency, or partial-result possibilities.

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 nine-word sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the returns are listed compactly.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema present (so return-value details are covered elsewhere), the description captures the operation, the input, and the key outputs. The only missing context, explicit sibling routing and deeper behavior, is minor for this scale of tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'A submitted run' does indirectly clarify that run_id refers to the identifier of a previously submitted run, but it does not explain the ID format or how to obtain it. Given the single, semantically obvious parameter, this is adequate but not rich.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a clear resource ('a submitted run') and enumerates what the agent receives back (status, artifacts, errors). It is distinguishable from siblings by resource type — runs versus workflows, capabilities, and canvases — though it does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: when you need a run's status, artifacts, or errors, this is the tool. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusion criteria such as 'use get_workflow for workflow data instead.'

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