get_simulation_run

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the key quirk: results are capped at 100 item summaries, itemsTruncated signals omission, and itemsMetadata holds API pagination metadata. That is genuine behavior beyond the schema. It stops short of stating read-only semantics explicitly or any auth/error behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what is returned, how truncation is signaled, and where to go for per-item detail. The truncation caveat is placed before the sibling pointer, which is the right order for an agent deciding whether this result is sufficient.

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 must convey the return shape, and it does so at a useful level (status, counts, 100 truncated item summaries, two metadata fields). It could be more complete about what the item summary objects contain or how itemsMetadata should be used to page further.

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 sole required parameter runId has no description in the schema or in the description text. The meaning is inferable from the tool's purpose (a simulation run identifier), and the uuid format in the schema removes most ambiguity, so the gap is small but real.

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 and resource ("Gets a simulation run") and enumerates what comes back: status, item counts, and the first 100 item summaries. It also names the sibling get_simulation_run_item and states what that one returns instead, so an agent can separate the two tools without opening either schema.

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?

It gives an explicit routing rule: use get_simulation_run_item for an item's transcript and call details. That covers the most likely sibling confusion, but it offers no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus list_simulation_runs or run_simulations, and no preconditions for runId.

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