get_run_control

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Return' aligns with these. The description adds the concept of 'durable' state and specific data categories, but offers no additional behavioral context such as error handling or consistency guarantees. This is adequate given the annotations.

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 action-first sentence that efficiently lists the returned information categories without any wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter signature, output schema, and safety annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, the lack of usage context differentiating it from the many sibling get_* tools is a meaningful gap, especially with a large sibling toolset.

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?

The sole parameter run_id is self-explanatory from its name, but the description provides no additional meaning and schema description coverage is 0%. A brief mention of which run's control state is being queried would improve parameter understanding.

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 tool's function: returning durable lifecycle status, revision, checkpoint, cancellation, and next stage. It uses a specific verb and resource list, which helps distinguish it from generic run retrieval tools, though it does not 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_run, get_run_events, or get_run_view. It only describes what it returns, leaving tool selection to inference.

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