get_run

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

Annotations already label this as safe/read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds a behavior not fully encoded in annotations: the uncertainty that a terminal status is not necessarily 'done' and attention data is part of the state. This enriches the agent's model beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy: the first states the main function, the second provides a crucial caveat. The most important instruction (inspect attention) is front-loaded as a second sentence right after the purpose, and every word earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and full safety annotations, the description covers the key fields and the common failure to inspect attention. It does not explain the return structure in detail, but that is acceptable given a simple input and no explicit expectation of a structured output schema. The missing piece is a note on how to obtain the run_id, but that is often inferable.

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 is 0%, so the description is expected to compensate for the parameter semantics. It modestly does so by making clear that run_id identifies a run, and the run's status/output/attention/artifacts are retrieved. It stops short of noting where run_id comes from (e.g., start_run) or what format it takes, so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('run'), and enumerates the returned scope: status, current output, attention, and artifacts. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_status or list_artifacts, but the combination of these fields makes the purpose clear and unambiguous.

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 second sentence gives actionable guidance: a terminal status may still require attention, so the agent should inspect the attention field before declaring completion. This addresses a subtle trap and instructs when and how to interpret the response, though it does not name alternatives such as get_status or wait_run.

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