live_get_run

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes the return contents but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, though the name and description imply a read-only query.

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 informative but slightly verbose. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes useful context in the second sentence, without being excessively long.

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?

The description lists what is returned (status, step statuses, error for failed steps) and states it works for both running and finished runs. This is sufficient given the absence of an output schema and the relatively simple input parameters.

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 covers runId as a required string and provides descriptions for project and session. The description adds meaning to runId by specifying it comes from live_start_run or live_replay_flow, helping the agent understand where the ID originates.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves full detail for a single run by ID, including status and per-step statuses and errors, distinguishing it from sibling tools like live_list_runs and live_get_suite_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?

Provides clear usage context: it is the follow-up after live_start_run or live_replay_flow to check if the run worked and where it failed. It also notes it works for both running and finished runs, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools.

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