ls_read_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that hydrate_children defaults to False, that child_limit only applies when hydrate_children=True, and provides the valid range for child_limit. 'Read' implies a non-destructive operation, covering the safety profile.

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 and well-structured, with a clear opening sentence and an Args list. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description is complete for a simple read tool with three parameters and an output schema present. It explains defaults, ranges, and the relationship between hydrate_children and child_limit, covering all necessary behavioral context.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: run_id is required, hydrate_children includes child spans with a default, and child_limit specifies the maximum and range. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool reads a single run, with an optional children hydration feature. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like ls_list_runs (which lists) and ls_list_children (which lists children).

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 usage for fetching a single run's details, which is clear from the verb 'Read' and the resource 'single run'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to infer when to use it.

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