whodb_platform_function_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description still adds real value: it discloses where runs originate (start_run), what each record contains (status, output, logs, error), and that the workspace override is scoped per-call without mutating defaults.

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?

Three tight sentences: behavior first, then data provenance/payload, then the workspace override. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (status, output, logs, error) and explains the session-default resolution for workspace. Minor gaps remain: limit/pagination behavior and the fields projection parameter are only documented in the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the run_id ('returns that one run instead of a list') and function_id ('lists its recent runs') semantics, but the workspace targeting wording largely overlaps the schema's own 'Optional target for this call only' and 'Does not change the default host' text.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Return one persisted function run' / 'list recent runs for one function') and clarifies the two selection modes via run_id vs function_id. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from near-neighbors like whodb_platform_function_wait or whodb_platform_functions, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the run_id/function_id split, and the provenance note ('Runs come from the function start_run action') gives useful context. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools such as function_wait (waiting for a run) or functions (listing function definitions), which an agent must infer.

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