orchestrate_get_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries full weight. It discloses the 'same process only' constraint but does not mention side effects, authentication, or error behavior. For a simple read operation, this is minimally adequate.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Fetch run state') and includes a critical constraint. No redundant 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on what 'run state' contains and what 'same process only' means in practice. More context on return values would improve completeness.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only notes that run_id is used to fetch state. It provides no format, example, or additional semantics to compensate for the bare schema. A higher score would require more detail on the parameter's meaning.

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 action ('Fetch'), the resource ('run state'), and the identifying parameter ('run_id'), and adds a specific constraint ('same process only'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like orchestrate_start_run or orchestrate_plan_recipe.

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 explicitly limits usage to runs within the same process, which guides when to use. However, it does not name alternative tools for cross-process or other scenarios, though the constraint is clear.

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