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 what the response contains ('with its step details'), which is useful beyond the schema, but it says nothing about read-only semantics, behavior when the run_id is unknown, or result size.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The returned-content hint is placed before the object of the action, so nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, this covers the essential purpose and return content. Minor gaps: no error/missing-run behavior and no note that this is a non-mutating read.

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 100% and the single run_id parameter is already documented in the schema as required. The description adds no format, example, or sourcing guidance beyond that, so the 3 baseline applies.

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 ('Get a single workflow run') plus a scope hint that it includes step details. This implicitly separates it from list_workflow_runs, but the sibling is never named.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'single' suggests fetching one run's detail as opposed to listing runs, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to list_workflow_runs as the alternative.

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