emu_get_operation_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 behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read operation via 'Fetch', but does not mention what happens if the ID is invalid, whether it's idempotent, what the return payload looks like (since there's no output schema), or any required permissions. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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 concise with zero wasted words, but it is under-specified. A single clause provides only the purpose without any structural elements like parameter details or usage hints. It is not a tautology, but it borders on minimalism, earning a mid-range score.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description still lacks essential context. An agent needs to know what an 'operation run' is, what ID to use, and what the response will be. The description does not address these, leaving the tool insufficient for confident use.

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 description does not mention the 'id' parameter at all. It doesn't clarify that 'id' refers to the operation run identifier or specify any format or constraints. The agent must guess what ID to provide, making this inadequate for correct invocation, especially given the low 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?

Description 'Fetch one operation run' clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the specific resource 'one operation run', distinguishing it from sibling tools like emu_list_operation_runs (which lists multiple) and emu_create_operation_run (which creates). The singular 'one' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify that this tool is for retrieving a specific run by ID, while emu_list_operation_runs is for listing all runs. The description gives no context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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