get_co_scientist_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation via 'Get' and 'current synthesized state,' but it does not state whether this call has side effects, whether it can trigger generation/verification, or how it behaves for missing, incomplete, or still-running runs.

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 description is compact, starts with a one-sentence purpose, and uses scannable bullets for triggers. The parameter line mostly restates the schema, but there is no padding and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, so the description is the only source of behavioral and return context. It covers primary triggers but leaves the report's structure and content ambiguous, and it does not distinguish this tool from report-generation/evaluation siblings enough for an agent to confidently prepare a final summary.

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?

The schema has only one parameter, run_id, and the description adds 'Co-Scientist run ID.' That is minimal semantic context beyond the schema's 'Run Id' title, but with 0% schema description coverage, the description does not adequately compensate by explaining the ID's format, source, or how to obtain it.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: get the current synthesized state of a Co-Scientist run. This is more precise than a vague purpose, though it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools like create_co_scientist_final_report or evaluate_co_scientist_run.

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 'AUTOMATIC TRIGGERS' section lists concrete cases for calling this tool: inspecting generation and verification progress, checking hypothesis reports, and preparing a final summary. This is clear guidance for when to use it, but it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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