scf_get_reconciliation_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. It clearly discloses that this is a read operation available to a viewer role and lists the three substantive parts of the response. It does not describe response shape or missing-run behavior, but those are less critical for a get-by-id detail operation.

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 with every element carrying information: read nature, viewer role, computed diff, deprecated entities, and planned action. There is no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter get-by-id tool with no output schema, the description gives enough expectation-setting by naming the main payload areas. The absence of status or error semantics is a minor gap, but the content list largely compensates for the missing output schema.

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 already documented including how to obtain each UUID. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable under the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Get one reconciliation run in detail,' and enumerates the returned content: computed diff, deprecated entities needing a decision, and the planned action. The 'read — viewer role' qualifier also distinguishes it from mutating reconciliation siblings like apply/rollback/cancel. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it stops 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?

The 'read — viewer role' parenthetical gives a clear access context, and the parameter descriptions tell where run_id comes from. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance, so the agent must infer that this is the detailed lookup as opposed to list/status/preview tools.

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