vro_workflow_run_get_by_run_id

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 fully covered. The description adds only the HTTP route GET /vro/runs/{runId}; it says nothing about what a run object contains, whether missing IDs error or return empty, or pagination/expansion 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?

Three short lines with no bloat in length, but line two is a pure restatement of line one and line three is just the route already visible in the title/annotations, so the content-to-length ratio is mediocre rather than wasteful.

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 simple single-parameter read with rich annotations this is minimally sufficient to call correctly. It still leaves the agent guessing about the returned run payload and failure behavior for a bad runId, which matters since there is no output schema.

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% with a single required runId parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description confirms runId selects one specific run but adds no format, source, or provenance detail (e.g. where a runId comes from) 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?

States a specific verb and resource (retrieve a Workflow Run) scoped to a single run ID, which is enough to distinguish it from vro_workflow_run_get_all. However, it never name-checks the near-siblings vro_workflow_run_get_all or vro_workflow_run_logs_get_by_run_id, and the second line simply restates the first rather than sharpening the purpose.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. The only implicit guidance is 'by run ID', which an agent has to infer from the name and parameter rather than from the description text.

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