BearQ: Get Workflow Run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the call is non-blocking and may return a partial/in-progress snapshot, which an agent needs in order to decide to re-poll rather than treat the result as final.

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 behaviorally important sentence — what is returned and that it does not block — is front-loaded, and nothing is padded. The trailing "Toolset" and parameter block is boilerplate that largely duplicates the schema, costing a little space but not obscuring the core statement.

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?

With no output schema, the description properly compensates by enumerating the returned fields (status, per-step progress, task/test/discovery/ACU stats), which is what an agent needs to plan around the response. Only minor gaps remain, such as not-found behavior or whether stats are cumulative versus per-step.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself documenting "BearQ workflow run ID." The description merely restates that same line, adding no format, sourcing, or error semantics (e.g. what happens for an unknown runId). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the meaning.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Retrieves a workflow run") and enumerates the payload — status, per-step progress, stats for tasks/tests/discovery/ACUs — so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not (e.g. bearq_wait_for_task, bearq_get_task_status), so differentiation is only implicit through the non-blocking note.

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?

"Returns immediately with whatever's available — does not block on the run completing" tells the agent this is a polling call rather than a wait, which is the key usage decision against the wait/get-status siblings. There is no explicit "use X instead when Y" routing and no stated prerequisite (e.g. the run must already exist), so it stops short of the top band.

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