kalei_run_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' implies read-only retrieval, and 'completed run' states a precondition, but the description does not disclose response behavior, error cases, or whether the run must be finished before calling. It is acceptable but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that captures the essential purpose and precondition without unnecessary words. Every phrase earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter retrieval tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the result ('cognitive profile'), the precondition ('completed run'), and the parameter source is covered by the schema. It lacks a note about the exact return shape, but no output schema exists and the complexity is low.

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 run_id parameter is already documented as 'Run ID from kalei_profile_model.' The description repeats the resource concept but adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('final cognitive profile for a completed run'), so an agent can understand what the tool returns. It differentiates from the sibling run_progress through the word 'final,' though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 phrase 'for a completed run' implies when this tool should be used, but the description gives no explicit guidance about alternatives such as kalei_run_progress or when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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