enoch_run_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context about the included data (queue/paper rows and events) and the term 'bounded' hints at limits, but does not contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise at 10 words, but its brevity comes at the cost of missing critical information about parameters and return data. It is well-structured but overly terse.

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 the absence of an output schema and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format, the meaning of 'bounded', or how the data is aggregated. A more thorough description is needed for effective tool selection.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'run_id' or 'event_limit'. Although parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no extra meaning, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Bounded run detail with related queue/paper rows and events' clearly indicates that the tool retrieves detailed information about a specific run, including associated queue/paper rows and events. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like enoch_runs (list runs) and enoch_events (events only), but lacks an explicit action verb.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implicitly suggests using it when needing combined run, queue, paper, and event details, but no when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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