Get Run Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real behavioral context: it explains that parentRunId signals re-execution and what resolvedOpSelection means, which goes beyond the structured fields. It still omits error behavior for an unknown run_id and any permission/auth expectations, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

It is front-loaded and organized into a purpose line, a Returns list, interpretation notes, and a When-to-use line, so it scans well. The Returns field enumeration partially duplicates the output schema, which is slight redundancy rather than waste.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and instead spends its budget on lineage semantics and usage routing, which is the right allocation. The one real hole is the undocumented env parameter, which leaves an agent guessing at its meaning.

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 there are two parameters: run_id is only loosely implied by 'a single run', and env is never mentioned anywhere in the description or schema. For a tool where the schema provides no parameter documentation, the description should have compensated and does not.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get full details for a single run') and enumerates the payload (status, config, tags, lineage), which clearly separates it from the list-oriented get_runs. It does not explicitly contrast with close siblings like get_run_logs or get_run_stats, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 'When to use' clause gives an explicit trigger ('after get_runs to inspect a specific run') and a second concrete use case (checking whether a run is a re-execution). It names the upstream alternative get_runs but gives no exclusions against the other get_run_* siblings, so routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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