get_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a 'summary status,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it's safe, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what happens if the run_id is invalid. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence with zero waste: 'Get the current summary status for a known run.' It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter semantics, it lacks details on behavioral traits and usage context, making it only partially complete for effective agent use.

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 input schema has 1 parameter (run_id) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic details. The description adds minimal context by implying 'run_id' refers to 'a known run,' but doesn't explain format, examples, or constraints. This partially compensates for the schema gap, but not fully, aligning with the baseline for moderate coverage.

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's purpose: 'Get the current summary status for a known run.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('summary status'), and scope ('for a known run'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_runs' or 'poll_events', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'a known run' but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., that the run must already exist from a previous operation) or contrast it with siblings like 'list_runs' (for listing runs) or 'poll_events' (for monitoring events). This leaves the agent without explicit usage context.

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