ps_get_run_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers very little. It implies a read operation but does not disclose whether a summary must be pre-generated, what happens if none exists, language behavior, or any response characteristics.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally sound. But its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication of necessary detail.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the description omits the prerequisite relationship to ps_generate_summary, the meaning of the language parameter, and any distinction from peer run getters. For a tool operating in a 26-tool suite with several near-identical getters, this is incomplete.

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% across 2 parameters, and the description adds nothing: neither run_id nor the language parameter (default 'zh', which selects the summary language) is explained. The description does nothing to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a ... run summary'), so the basic operation is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as ps_get_run_meta, ps_get_run_stage, and ps_get_metrics, all of which are read-only getters on the same run object. The purpose is adequate but not disambiguated.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and never mentions the relationship to ps_generate_summary (must a summary exist first?) or to the other run getters. An agent has no criteria for choosing this tool over its siblings.

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