get_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Fetch' clearly signals a read-only operation and names the returned content, but it does not disclose response shape, error behavior, or whether output is truncated.

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?

A single sentence, action-first, with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and scope.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description is nearly sufficient: it identifies what is fetched and how to address the target. It only lacks a pointer to list_runs for discovering run ids and a brief note on expected output details.

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 0%, and the description only restates that lookup happens 'by run id.' It adds little beyond the run_id property name and does not explain the format, source, or how to obtain a valid run id.

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 ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('status and output for a dispatch or workflow step'), and an identifier ('run id'). This distinguishes it from list_runs (listing runs) and dispatch/run_workflow (creating runs).

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 use when a run_id is known and status/output is needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not conditions. The contrast with list_runs is natural but left for the agent to infer.

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