Read the output of a multimodal run, waiting up to 30 seconds for completion, and inline small image or audio artifacts for immediate review.
Read a multimodal run, optionally wait up to 30 seconds, and inline completed image or audio artifacts when small enough.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | ||
| wait_ms | No | ||
| include_media | No | ||
| include_prompt | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it can wait up to 30 seconds, and it inlines artifacts only when small enough. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, though it doesn't specify what happens when artifacts are too large or what 'small enough' means.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Read a multimodal run') and packs the key behaviors (waiting, inlining) efficiently. No wasted words.
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 read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers the main behaviors: reading, waiting, and inlining. It lacks details on return format or what happens when artifacts are too large, but given the absence of an output schema and the tool's relative simplicity, it is reasonably complete. A bit more on the 'small enough' threshold or fallback behavior would make it fully complete.
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. It explains the purpose of wait_ms (wait up to 30 seconds) and include_media (inline artifacts), but doesn't detail run_id or include_prompt. The description adds some meaning beyond the schema, but not enough to fully compensate for the 0% coverage.
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 tool's purpose: reading a multimodal run, with optional waiting and inlining of completed image/audio artifacts. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_run by specifying the multimodal/media aspect and the inline artifact behavior.
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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to read a multimodal run and possibly wait for completion. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of siblings like get_run and start_media_analysis provides enough differentiation. A clear exclusion or alternative mention would improve it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.