get_playbook_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, ensuring non-destructive, safe behavior. The description adds that it returns 'step-by-step assertion outcomes,' which is behavioral detail beyond the annotations but not essential since the safety profile is already clear.

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?

Two sentences achieve complete communication: the first defines the action and result, the second advises when to use. No redundant words; every sentence is purposeful.

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 simple two-parameter schema, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the purpose, content of results, and usage context, which is all that is needed for an agent to decide to use this tool.

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%, with both parameters having descriptions ('The playbook ID,' 'The playbook run ID to retrieve'). The description does not add any further semantics about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Gets detailed results of a Cognigy.AI playbook run including step-by-step assertion outcomes.' The verb 'gets' and resource 'playbook run detailed results' are specific. The sibling 'list_playbook_runs' lists runs without details, so this description differentiates adequately.

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 says 'Use this to analyze test failures and debug conversation flows,' which indicates appropriate usage. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the context of testing and debugging is clear. An explicit alternative like 'for listing runs, use list_playbook_runs' would improve it.

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