get_results_for_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose pagination behavior, the default limit of 250, or that 'all results' requires offset/limit traversal. This is a meaningful gap for an 8-parameter tool.

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?

One short sentence with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and every word contributes. The brevity is a virtue here, though other dimensions penalize the missing detail it omits.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too thin. It does not explain pagination, timestamp formats, status filtering, or what a returned result object contains. An agent would need external knowledge to use the tool correctly at scale.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond run scoping, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter semantics adequately.

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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'Get all results for a run'. It identifies the run scoping, but it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like get_results or get_results_for_case, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for a run' implies the intended context, so an agent can guess when to use it. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over get_results or get_results_for_case, and no mention of exclusions or alternatives.

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