Get an evaluation run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation by describing returned status and results, but says nothing about read-only safety, permissions/auth requirements, pagination, rate limits, or what includeRaw changes.

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?

It is a single compact phrase with no filler, and the result content is front-loaded. It could be a fuller sentence and lacks explicit action framing, but it is appropriately sized for the tool.

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?

The description gives a high-level return shape despite the absence of an output schema, which is useful. However, for a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, it omits usage context, auth defaults, and raw-result behavior, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 moderate (71%), and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain runId (the only required parameter), includeRaw, or how botId/clientId/tenantId/workspace/environmentId defaults are resolved.

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 names the resource (an evaluation run) and specifies the returned content: status, per-case results, and a pass/fail summary per test method. It distinguishes the per-case/result-summary focus from a sibling like cs_list_evaluation_runs, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.

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 explicit alternatives. The agent must infer that this tool is for fetching a single run's results rather than listing runs or downloading a snapshot.

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