Read a remediation run

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to re-state safety. It adds value by noting that operator filesystem paths are removed, which is a behavioral trait not obvious from annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentence that efficiently lists all key return fields without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the purpose and provides immediate clarity.

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?

Given no output schema, the description provides a good overview of the returned data. It covers all major components (evidence, artifacts, verification, ledger) and mentions removal of paths. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's scope, though some structural details are omitted.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (run_id and include_events), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 it returns 'the full record for a run' and enumerates specific data fields (URN evidence, blast radius, artifacts, verification result, ledger). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like praxis_get_artifact which is for single artifacts.

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 state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the intent is clear (get comprehensive run data), there are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidelines, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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