Get Hermes run

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

The description mentions 'writing redacted receipts' as a side effect, which adds genuine value beyond the annotations. However, annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description doesn't disclose what 'redacted receipts' writes or where, nor reconcile the read intent with readOnlyHint=false. With annotations present, the description adds some context but not rich behavioral detail.

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, dense sentence that packs in the method (GET), resource, purpose, side effect, and access gates without waste. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficient in expression.

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, the description doesn't need to explain return values. The description covers the purpose and gating requirements. However, the 'writing redacted receipts' side effect is left unexplained (what/where), and for a tool where readOnlyHint=false, the behavioral details are sparse. Adequately complete but with gaps around the side-effect behavior.

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 for the single parameter (run_id) is 100%, so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 it is a typed GET wrapper that reads a Hermes run status. It identifies the resource (Hermes run by ID) and the verb (reads status). It distinguishes somewhat from siblings like hermes_api_runs_start/stop/events, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling read tools like hermes_kanban_run_get.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The auth/gate requirements ('api_call tier with live and external-side-effect gates') hint at preconditions, but there's no guidance distinguishing this from other run-related tools or alternatives. Sibling tools like hermes_api_runs_events and hermes_kanban_run_get exist but aren't referenced.

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