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. The description adds context about the return style ('compact dashboard-oriented') but nothing further about auth, error behavior, or data scope. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition. Efficient for agent consumption.

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 strong annotations, the tool has enough structured context. The description is minimal but sufficient for a simple read-only getter. The 'dashboard-oriented' qualifier could be more precise, but overall completeness is acceptable.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain run_id. While the parameter name is fairly self-explanatory as an identifier, the description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving format or source of the ID ambiguous.

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 specific verb 'Return' with a clear resource 'run record' and a distinguishing qualifier 'compact dashboard-oriented'. This separates it from sibling tools like get_run_events, get_run_result, and get_run_view, which imply different scopes or formats.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'dashboard-oriented' hints at a use case, but the description doesn't specify exclusions or mention any sibling tools. Given the many similar get_* run tools, this lack of direction is a clear gap.

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