live_get_scenario_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return content (overall status, flow index, per-step detail via currentRun) and that it works for both running and finished runs. It doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, but the 'get' verb implies that. It adds useful context beyond the schema.

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 a single dense sentence that packs essential information without fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and then elaborates on the return structure. While slightly long, every clause earns its place; no wasted words.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure and references live_get_run for shape, giving the agent a concrete expectation. It also covers both running and finished states. It doesn't mention potential errors or prerequisites, but for a single-item get operation this is sufficient.

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 coverage is 67%, so runId lacks a schema description. The description compensates by explaining runId is the id of a scenario run started via live_start_scenario_run or live_replay_scenario. Project and session already have schema descriptions, so no additional meaning is needed there. The description adds value for the undocumented parameter.

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 states the action (get full detail) and resource (one scenario run) and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for scenario runs started via live_start_scenario_run or live_replay_scenario, and referencing live_get_run for single flows. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 indicates when to use it (for a specific scenario run, both running and finished) and implicitly contrasts with live_get_run for single flows. It doesn't explicitly list alternative tools like live_get_suite_run, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to choose correctly in most cases.

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