get_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the response contains. The simple 'Get' suggests a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 sentence that is concise, but it does not provide structured information. It is minimally adequate but could be improved by adding more detail without increasing length significantly.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what is returned (e.g., the run object). It is too brief for a tool with no annotations or output schema, leaving the agent with incomplete information about the tool's result.

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 description only reiterates that the run is identified by id, which is already evident from the required parameter name. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should add more detail, such as the format or source of the run_id, but it does not.

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) and resource (a single test run) and specifies the identifier method (by id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_runs (retrieves multiple runs) and add_run (creates a 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 description implies usage when you have a specific run ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_runs or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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