get_run_view

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which already establish this as a safe read operation. The description adds the behavioral context that the result is 'UI-ready' and a 'complete projection' versus raw data—useful nuance beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't describe response shape, pagination, or performance characteristics.

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?

One sentence, directly to the point, front-loaded with the core action. It qualifies as concise. It could arguably include more usage context, but for a single-sentence description it is efficient and clear.

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?

This is a simple read tool with one parameter, strong safety annotations (read-only, idempotent), and an output schema present. Given the low complexity, the description plus annotations and output schema provide adequate coverage. It could add return-value semantics, but the output schema presumably handles that.

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%, but the schema has only one self-explanatory parameter (run_id, required). The description doesn't elaborate on run_id's format or constraints, but with a single string parameter and a top-level output schema present, the baseline for a simple identifier parameter is reasonable. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema conveys.

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 complete UI-ready run projection for inline harness rendering' clearly states a verb (return), a resource (run projection), and a specific purpose (inline harness rendering). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_run, get_run_events, and get_run_result by emphasizing the 'UI-ready' and 'complete projection' angle, though it doesn't 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?

The description implies this is for rendering a run in a harness UI context, and the 'UI-ready projection' phrasing suggests it returns a composable representation rather than raw data. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs get_run/get_run_result/get_run_events, nor does it state exclusionary conditions. Sibling differentiation is implied but not explicit.

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