testmo_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. It does disclose the returned summary elements, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication needs, or the effect of the 'expands' parameter. Still, 'get' implies a read operation, and the listed return fields offer some transparency.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It immediately communicates the tool's purpose and includes the key output components without redundancy.

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 simple getter without an output schema, the description adequately communicates the return contents and the tool's scope. However, it lacks explicit mention of how the 'expands' parameter influences the response and does not differentiate from sibling tools, which slightly reduces 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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (run_id and expands), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no further meaning about the parameters or their usage, which matches the baseline score.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('a single run's summary'), and enumerates the contents (name, status counts, totals, milestone). This distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like testmo_list_runs and from the generic testmo_get.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as testmo_list_runs or testmo_get. There is no mention of use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent without directional support.

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