ps_get_run_meta

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only conveys the bare implication that "Read" is non-destructive. It says nothing about error behavior for an unknown run_id, whether the run must be complete, or what class of data counts as metadata.

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?

Three words is technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than efficiency: there is no front-loaded scope, no disambiguation, and no actionable information. Brevity here costs the agent more than it saves.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a tool sitting among many similarly named run-level getters the definition leaves the key question unanswered: what distinguishes this metadata call from run summary, stage, or metrics. It is incomplete for a 27-sibling toolset.

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% and the single required parameter run_id is documented nowhere. The description could have said where run_id comes from (e.g., ps_list_runs), but it adds no semantics beyond the parameter's self-explanatory name.

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?

It names a verb and resource ("Read run metadata"), so the operation is identifiable, but "metadata" is undefined and the description never distinguishes it from close siblings like ps_get_run_summary, ps_get_run_stage, or ps_get_metrics. An agent cannot tell from the text which of these four run-inspection tools returns what.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no statement of prerequisites, no condition under which this tool is preferred over ps_get_run_summary or ps_list_runs, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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