relay_run_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool retrieves 'full details' including 'step outputs and trace URL', which adds some context about what information is returned. However, it doesn't describe other behavioral traits, such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not stated), error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get full details of a specific run') and adds specific inclusions ('including all step outputs and trace URL'). There is no wasted text, and every word earns its place by clarifying the tool's scope and output.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving detailed run data) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is partially complete. It specifies what details are included (step outputs, trace URL), which helps, but doesn't cover other aspects like return format, error cases, or how it differs from siblings. Without an output schema, more detail on the response would be beneficial, but the description provides a basic understanding.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'runId' documented as 'The run ID to retrieve'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain where to obtain the run ID or its format. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra param details, so it meets the minimum viable level.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get full details of a specific run including all step outputs and trace URL.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('run'), and scope ('full details'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'relay_runs_list' (which likely lists runs) and 'relay_run' (which might be more basic). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'relay_workflow_run', which could be a similar tool for workflows.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a run ID from another tool, or compare it to siblings like 'relay_run' or 'relay_workflow_run'. The context is implied (use when you have a run ID and want detailed info), but no explicit usage rules or exclusions are stated.

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