Get Kanban run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that it 'writes redacted receipts,' a noteworthy side effect beyond the read operation the annotations suggest. However, it doesn't explain auth requirements, rate limits, or error/not-found behavior for a non-existent run_id.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the HTTP verb, resource path, and return contents. Some wording is slightly jargon-heavy ('Typed GET ... wrapper'), but there is zero waste.

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 it has a full output schema, a single well-documented parameter, and strong annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description is largely complete. The main gap is clarity around how this differs from the similarly-scoped hermes_kanban_run_inspect sibling, though that is a usage-guidelines concern more than completeness.

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 100% (the run_id is fully described with an example format '741 or run_xxxxxxxx'). The description reinforces that run_id refers to a single run and adds that the read returns single-run detail. This matches the baseline 3 for full schema coverage; the description adds minimal supplemental semantic value beyond the schema.

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 verb (GET), resource (kanban runs single-run detail), and specific fields returned (task id, status, timestamps, exit code, log path). It stands distinct from siblings like hermes_kanban_run_inspect and hermes_kanban_task_get. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the closely-named hermes_kanban_run_inspect sibling, which may be a near-overlap.

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 a read-only single-run retrieval tool but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions versus hermes_kanban_run_inspect or hermes_api_runs_get. The schema's title and the GET wrapper wording give context, but no explicit alternatives or conditions are mentioned.

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