get_thread_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds that the data is 'durable local' state, consistent with openWorldHint=false, plus hints at what is returned. That is modest added context above the structured fields, but nothing about freshness, size, or error behavior.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with 'Read', with no filler. It is economical, though the telegraphic style mildly reduces readability for an unfamiliar resource.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining return values is not required, yet the description spends its words on returns ('segment states, exact published URLs and next index') rather than the input meaning or the tool's role among siblings. For a parameterized, specialized read tool, the agent is left unsure what run_id is or when to call it.

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?

There is exactly one required parameter, run_id, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must supply its meaning. It does not mention run_id at all and never explains what identifies a run. Baseline relief for zero params does not apply here, leaving a real gap.

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 uses a read verb and enumerates the returned artifacts (segment states, published URLs, next index), giving a partial sense of purpose. But it never says what a 'thread run' is or how it differs from siblings like get_run_status, get_thread, or continue_thread, leaving the resource ambiguous. Vague rather than specific.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as get_run_status (current status) or get_thread (content). The agent must guess when this tool applies versus the many thread/run siblings in the list.

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