Get Patronus Run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention the return format ('YAML with run overview, TeamCity checks, and problems'), but it omits explicit confirmation that the operation is read-only and does not describe error handling or access requirements. This could leave an agent unsure about side effects.

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 well-organized with clear sections for usage, args, and returns. It is concise without being terse, and every sentence contributes actionable information (e.g., how to obtain the run ID, how to use the resulting build IDs).

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an existing output schema, the description covers all necessary invocation context: input source, return contents, and follow-up steps. It is complete enough for an agent to confidently select and call this tool without additional information.

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 schema only defines run_id as a string, but the description adds essential meaning: it is a 'Patronus run UUID', and it gives specific methods for sourcing it (from get_patronus_runs or a URL with an example). This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 'Get details of a specific Patronus run' and enumerates what will be included (TeamCity build checks and problems). This distinguishes it from the plural sibling get_patronus_runs, which lists runs rather than fetching a single run's details.

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?

It explicitly instructs to use the run ID from get_patronus_runs or a Patronus URL, and suggests following up with the teamcity CLI to inspect build IDs. This provides contextual workflow guidance, though it doesn't explicitly list when not to use the tool or alternative tools for different scenarios.

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