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 disclosure burden; it does reveal that this is a read operation returning status and per-case results. It does not mention auth requirements, default parameter behavior, or missing/invalid run ID handling, but for a simple getter the disclosed output behavior is reasonably informative.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core output (status and per-case results) and no filler. Every phrase adds signal.

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?

Reasonable for a simple fetcher: the description states what the response contains, and the schema covers environment/auth defaults. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the missing semantics of includeRaw and the lack of usage workflow leave clear 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?

The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, and schema coverage is only 71%: runId and includeRaw have no descriptions. runId is self-evident, but includeRaw is an ambiguous boolean that the description does not clarify, so the definition fails to compensate for a real schema 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 states a specific resource (evaluation run) and the exact payload: status, per-case results, and pass/fail summary per test method. This distinguishes it from siblings like cs_list_evaluation_runs (listing) and cs_run_evaluation (execution).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus cs_list_evaluation_runs, cs_run_evaluation, or other run-related tools. The read-only intent is implied by the name, but no prerequisites, workflow placement, or exclusions are stated.

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