live_get_suite_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'full detail' but does not clarify the response structure, confirm read-only behavior, or mention error handling. As a get operation, it likely has no side effects, but this is unstated, leaving the agent guessing.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the core purpose ('full detail') and the identifying key. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description should specify what 'full detail' includes or at least indicate the shape of the response. It does not mention how to obtain a runId (e.g., from live_list_suite_runs) or any potential error cases. For a simple get, it is adequate but leaves important gaps.

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% (project and session have descriptions; runId does not). The description mentions runId but only restates its name without adding format, provenance, or examples. It adds marginal value over the schema, which already documents project and session defaults.

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 tool retrieves full detail for a single suite run, identified by runId, and specifies it pertains to runs started via live_run_suite. This distinct verb-resource pairing separates it from listing or cancellation siblings.

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 provides clear context that this is for fetching details of a specific suite run, implying use when a runId is available. It does not explicitly name alternatives like live_list_suite_runs or exclude scenario runs, but the 'suite run' scope is clear. Lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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