get_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool fetches a summary, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state it is non-mutating, what happens if the run_id is invalid or the run is not completed, or any error behavior. It also doesn't mention rate limits or auth. The constraint 'completed run' is mentioned but not elaborated.

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 plus an example. It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes a concrete illustration. No wasted words; it earns its place efficiently.

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 tool with one parameter, an output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not explain what happens for non-completed runs or missing run_ids, and does not clarify whether the summary is a specific structure (though the output schema covers that). It could be more complete regarding failure modes and prerequisites, but given its simplicity, it is acceptable.

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 coverage is 100% – the schema already documents run_id as 'The run_id returned by run_backtest.' The description adds a concrete example, which is useful for format, but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (fetch), the resource (completed run's summary), and the key parameter (run_id). It provides a concrete example, making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like compare_runs, but the verb 'fetch' and 'summary' make it distinct from comparison or explanation 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?

The description implies usage: call when you have a run_id and need its summary. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., compare_runs for comparing runs, explain_trades for trade details). The example is helpful but there is no explicit exclusion or routing guidance.

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