get_run_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds modest value by indicating the result is 'full' and 'typed', but doesn't elaborate on pagination, response size, or whether this is a blocking wait vs immediate return. Given strong annotations, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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, clear sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the verb and resource and includes the 'typed' qualifier which adds value. Nothing extraneous.

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?

There is an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere and need not be repeated. The tool has only one parameter, has protective annotations, and is entirely straightforward. The description adequately covers what's needed for such a simple tool; the only gap is differentiation from get_run/get_run_view, but given output schema covers the return contract, this is mostly complete.

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 carries full parameter-documentation burden. However, with only a single parameter (run_id), the description lists it implicitly via 'a run', which is minimal but sufficient. It doesn't add type/format detail (e.g., UUID format), but with one self-explanatory parameter, this baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Return the full typed result for a run' uses a specific verb (return) with a clear resource (run result) and conveys scope ('full typed result'). It distinguishes reasonably from siblings like get_run, get_run_events, and get_run_view, though it doesn't explicitly name them or clarify what distinguishes 'result' from 'view' or 'events'.

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 tool clearly indicates 'result' vs siblings like get_run_view, get_run_events, or poll_run_events, which implies usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when you need the typed result vs raw events vs a view rendering), nor when not to use it.

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