get_governed_communication_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that this returns a 'canonical' 'projection' of a run, suggesting it is the authoritative read surface, but it doesn't explain what a projection contains or how it differs from other run views. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence that opens with the verb 'Read', making it compact and easy to scan. However, the phrase 'worker-owned Revenue' adds confusion rather than clarity, so not every token earns its place.

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?

Despite having an output schema and safety annotations, the description leaves the agent without an explanation of how this read tool fits into the governed communication run lifecycle. The meaning of 'canonical...projection' and the 'gcr_' prefix is undocumented, and no relationship to start/cancel/list siblings is provided.

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 schema has three required ref parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explanation of their meaning, format, or source. The parameter names (company_ref, project_ref, run_ref) are self-descriptive at a high level, so it avoids a score of 1, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 uses the verb 'Read' and identifies a resource ('run projection'), so the core operation is clear. However, the domain phrase 'canonical worker-owned Revenue gcr_ run projection' is confusing and doesn't explicitly mention 'governed communication', relying on the unexplained abbreviation 'gcr_'. This weakens the purpose signal and makes it harder to distinguish from sibling run-related tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus start_governed_communication_run, cancel_governed_communication_run, or list_governed_communication_sources. The 'Read one' wording implies basic retrieving behavior, but no alternatives, prerequites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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