proofpage_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 of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation and mentions two things in the response ('progress' and 'coverage'), but says nothing about what happens with an invalid or unknown run_id, whether results are live or cached, or what a completed vs. in-progress run looks like.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but the terseness crosses into under-specification rather than economy. The key identifying detail (that this reads a single run) is absent.

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 annotations, no output schema, an undocumented required parameter, and a dense field of similarly named proofpage_* tools, this description is far too thin for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. An agent would likely need to guess between it and the list/collect/crawl siblings.

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% for the single required parameter run_id; it is a bare string with no format, source, or example. The description never mentions run_id, so it does not compensate at all for what the schema omits (e.g., that the value comes from a list_evidence_runs or start_crawl call).

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 verb 'Read' is clear, but the resource is described only as 'collection progress and coverage', leaving it unclear that the tool reads a single 'run' object identified by run_id. A reader cannot tell how this differs from proofpage_list_evidence_runs, proofpage_get_crawl, or proofpage_check_evidence_run, so the purpose stays vague.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which of the ~34 sibling tools to pick instead. With siblings like proofpage_list_evidence_runs (listing) and proofpage_collect (triggering collection), the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.

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