medeval_get_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate safety. It adds value by specifying exactly what data is returned (agents, actions, retrievals, warnings, outputs), which is helpful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe pagination, size limits, or error behavior, though the presence of an output schema mitigates this.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and lists the key data types. It contains no superfluous words or repetition, making it efficient and easy to parse. It is slightly under-specified for parameter guidance, but that is a content issue, not a conciseness problem.

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?

With an output schema present and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the return values and safety profile. However, the lack of parameter semantics and usage guidance leaves the tool partially incomplete. An agent would need to infer how to obtain run_id and workspace_id from other tools (e.g., list_runs) and decide when to use this tool. For a read operation with an output schema, this is moderately complete but not fully self-contained.

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 for the two required parameters, run_id and workspace_id. It does not mention them at all; the only meaning comes from schema titles 'Run Id' and 'Workspace Id', which are minimal. There is no explanation of their format, how to obtain them, or any relationships between them. This is a significant deficiency given the agent must correctly supply both.

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 'Read' and the resource 'one run', and enumerates the data types returned: agents, actions, retrievals, warnings, and outputs. It distinguishes itself from list_runs (which presumably lists summaries) by focusing on a single run's detailed contents, and from other tools that inspect specific aspects. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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 implies usage when you have a specific run_id and want its detailed contents, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related tools like medeval_list_runs or medeval_get_task_progress. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that a run must exist) or how to obtain run_id/workspace_id. With many sibling tools, this lack of routing guidance is a notable gap.

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