get_run

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses a specific edge-case behavior: if the database does not exist, the tool will not create it. It also restricts reads to explicitly saved consultations, adding useful precondition context.

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 compact sentence with two clauses, front-loading the main action and then adding the key no-creation behavior. There is no filler or redundant repetition.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description supplies the essential selection and safety context. The no-create guarantee and explicit-save qualifier cover important edge cases without needing to describe return values.

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 description never mentions run_id, its origin, or accepted values, so it adds no meaning beyond the bare 'Run Id' label. The agent must infer that run_id identifies the saved consultation.

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 states a clear verb ('读取'/read) and a precise resource ('用户曾明确保存的本地咨询' – locally saved consultations), and adds a non-creation guarantee that separates it from save_run. It avoids confusion with search_knowledge by emphasizing retrieval of an explicitly saved item.

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?

It conveys the context: use when an agent needs to retrieve a previously saved, user-confirmed local consultation, and the 'explicitly saved' qualifier excludes transient or unsaved consultations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough.

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