athena_gap_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, and the description enumerates the contents of the returned GAPRUN, adding behavioral context about what is included. However, it does not explicitly state safety (e.g., 'does not modify state') or clarify any absence of 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action and the key content areas in 22 words, earning its place entirely.

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 get operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it identifies the resource and lists what is returned (snapshot, closure paths, residuals, grow decision, digest). It lacks an explicit note that the output is a single object, but the singular 'one GAPRUN' covers that. No error behavior is mentioned, but for a read tool this is acceptable.

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 has one parameter (run_id, string, minLength 1) but schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter lacks any description. The tool description does not mention run_id by name or explain how to identify the GAPRUN, relying on the implication from 'one persisted GAPRUN'. This is insufficient given the schema provides no help.

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 the action ('Fetch') and resource ('one persisted GAPRUN') with specific qualifiers (exact snapshot, closure paths, residuals, grow decision, digest). It is distinguishable from siblings like athena_gap_recent and athena_gap_replay by focusing on a single persisted run, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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. It does not mention that this is for fetching a specific run by ID, nor does it direct users to athena_gap_recent for listing recent runs or athena_gap_replay for replays. Clear selection criteria are absent.

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