athena_orchestration_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation ('Fetch') and adds meaningful context about the returned object's contents ('frozen input/output', 'branch lifecycle', etc.), suggesting immutability and what data is included. However, it does not explicitly state error behavior or access requirements, so a small gap remains.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and core noun. It is concise and includes relevant details without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of what the tool returns by listing key components. It is not exhaustive about response structure or possible errors, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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) with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. While it does not explicitly explain run_id, the phrase 'Fetch one persisted AORRUN' implies the parameter identifies the specific run. The tool name and obvious parameter name provide some meaning, but the description could be more direct in linking run_id to the operation.

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 the specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as 'one persisted AORRUN', clearly indicating a single-object retrieval. It further distinguishes this from sibling tools like athena_orchestration_recent or athena_orchestration_replay by emphasizing 'persisted' and listing specific content aspects (frozen input/output, branch lifecycle, authority snapshots, decision digest).

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 description implies the tool is used to fetch a specific run by its persisted ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as athena_orchestration_recent or athena_orchestration_replay. There is no direct comparison or exclusionary guidance, so usage is only implied.

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