v9_get_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds valuable non-structured context the annotations cannot express — the Stochastly app must be installed and open, and an Atelier or Portfolio licence is required. The licensing prerequisite is stated twice (opening sentence and closing sentence), which is mildly redundant rather than incorrect.

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 install/licence preamble is a genuine blocker and is reasonably front-loaded, and the middle paragraph is dense with useful content (returned fields, sibling routing, error names). Minor duplication between the first and last sentences keeps it from being maximally tight.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return content — and it does, listing the verdict file, both robustness counts, PBO, and the log-line window. Combined with the licence prerequisite and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100% and the single run_id parameter already documents the 'latest' default and its source (v9_list_runs). The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies — it neither compensates nor detracts.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one batch scanner run') and enumerates exactly what comes back — verdict file, robustness counts n_total/n_robust_pass, PBO, and last 30 log lines. This distinguishes it cleanly from v9_list_runs (which only finds ids) and v9_tail_log (which streams more log lines).

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use v9_list_runs first to find the run_id, and v9_tail_log for more log lines,' naming both alternatives and the condition that selects them. It also names the failure modes ('no_runs', 'run_not_found'), so an agent can anticipate and interpret errors.

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