get_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what details are retrieved but lacks information on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely involves sensitive run data.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and lists the retrieved details concisely, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 complexity of run management tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should explain the return format, potential errors, or how it integrates with siblings like 'abort_run' or 'resurrect_run'. The current description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the context of 'run_id' or the implications of 'wait_for_finish'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'details of a specific run', specifying what information is retrieved (status, stats, and storage IDs). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_last_run' or 'get_run_log' by focusing on comprehensive run details rather than specific aspects, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_last_run' for recent runs or 'get_run_log' for logs. The description implies usage for retrieving detailed run information but offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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