Get an EAS mobile release run

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

The annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral/auth detail: the same scoped EXPO_TOKEN used to start the release is required to fetch it. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core action and resource, and the second adds the only essential prerequisite. There is no redundant phrasing or filler.

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 simple single-parameter, read-only status tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the key operational need: what is fetched and what token context is required. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly naming the expected usage flow relative to starting a release, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter, workflowRunId, and the schema provides its type and UUID format but no semantic description. The tool description's phrase 'previously dispatched EAS Workflow run' gives some context that the ID refers to a prior workflow run, but it does not explicitly state that this ID is returned by start_mobile_release or how to obtain it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and a clear resource ('a previously dispatched EAS Workflow run and its build/submission jobs'), which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like start_mobile_release and check_mobile_release_readiness by focusing on fetching an existing run's status.

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 phrase 'previously dispatched' implies this should be used after a release has been started, and the token requirement ties it to the dispatch action. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over check_mobile_release_readiness or other related sibling tools, so the routing is only implied.

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