get_run_view

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the output is 'UI-ready' and a 'projection', indicating a transformed view rather than raw data. It does not disclose details like response format or potential errors, but given the output schema exists, this is acceptable.

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, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the main verb and resource. It is concise, avoids redundancy, and contains no unnecessary words or filler.

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 simple tool with one parameter, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose and the nature of the output ('UI-ready run projection'). The output schema and annotations fill in details about return structure and safety. However, it does not mention any prerequisites or caveats (e.g., whether the run must be in a certain state), which could be important for agent decision-making.

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 schema has one parameter (run_id) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention run_id at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional context or behavioral meaning beyond what the schema already states. Given the low schema coverage, the description should have compensated but did not.

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: 'Return the complete UI-ready run projection for inline harness rendering.' It specifies the verb (Return), the resource (run projection), and the purpose (inline harness rendering), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_run or get_run_result, which likely return raw or processed data rather than a UI-ready projection.

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 when to use the tool ('for inline harness rendering'), providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool versus similar get_run_* siblings. This is sufficient for an experienced user but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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