Fetch Local Run Details Lazily

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds valuable context: lazy retrieval, incremental paging via offset/maxChars, and a caution about context size. No contradiction with annotations; this is exactly the kind of behavioral context agents need beyond structured hints.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by operational guidance. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a read-only retrieval tool with four simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, and how to retrieve incrementally. It doesn't describe the exact return shape, but the named views imply result kinds, and annotations cover safety. The only minor gap is where runId originates, which is reasonably inferable from sibling context.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does by explaining the meaning of view (summary/diff/validation/full) and the role of offset/maxChars for incremental loading. It doesn't restate defaults or constraints (schema has them), but it maps parameters to an intended usage pattern. runId is contextually obvious as the identifier of the stored run.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('stored local execution result'), and the title adds 'Lazily'. The description clearly distinguishes this retrieval tool from the execute_* siblings by emphasizing incremental detail fetching rather than execution.

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?

Tells the agent when to call it ('only when Claude needs more detail') and prescribes a sequence ('Prefer summary first'), plus warns against loading a large result at once. It doesn't name sibling tools as alternatives, but the when and how guidance is clear enough to select this tool.

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