gh_get_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description is consistent with these annotations but adds no extra context about side effects, auth, or rate limits, so it meets the baseline for annotated tools.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 get operation. The annotations cover behavioral aspects, and the description implies the return value (details of the run). No additional context is needed for basic usage.

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 no parameter descriptions, but the names (repo, owner, run_id) are self-explanatory. The description does not add any further meaning to the parameters, so it does not exceed the baseline for self-explanatory names.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'GitHub Actions workflow run', specifying it's for a specific run. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gh_list_runs (which lists runs) and gh_get_workflow (which gets workflow details).

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 does not provide when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives. It is a simple functional statement without explicit usage conditions, similar to the mid example which scored 2.

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