get_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal that the payload includes 66-item results, which is useful, but says nothing about read-only safety, errors for missing runs, permissions, or size/latency characteristics.

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?

One sentence with no filler, and the core action-plus-content statement is front-loaded. It is efficient, though extremely short given the gaps elsewhere.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description does not need to enumerate return fields, and it adds a helpful note about the 66-item results. However, with no annotations and an undocumented run_id, the definition is only minimally sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0% and the single required parameter run_id has no title, description, or example. The description only implicitly ties itself to a 'kosu' (run) and never explains the identifier's format or provenance, leaving a critical input undocumented.

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 gives a clear verb ('dondurur' = returns) and resource ('kosu detaylari' = run details), and adds scope by noting the 66-item results are included. It does not differentiate this tool from the near-identical sibling get_report, so an agent must guess which one to call.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling (get_report, list_analyses, run_analysis) it should be preferred over. The name 'get_run' implies retrieval of a single run, but nothing in the text confirms or constrains that.

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