get_workflow_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the burden is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond the schema and annotations: availability varies by edition/license, and some routes return 404 or empty lists — a failure mode an agent should anticipate.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, then the availability caveat and route. The route string is somewhat redundant but earns its place by helping interpret 404s.

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 read tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers the essential failure behavior. However, it never says what 'details' are returned, leaving the agent without a picture of the response shape.

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% and none of the three required integers (project_id, workflow_id, run_id) are explained. The URL template implies they are path identifiers, which adds marginal value, but it does not compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('Get workflow run details') that clearly identifies a single-run read. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like list_workflow_runs or get_workflow, but 'details' versus 'list' is enough for an agent to pick the correct one in most cases.

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 description gives a caveat about edition/license/permissions but no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_workflow_runs (to discover run IDs) or get_workflow_run_artifacts. An agent must infer the alternative from sibling names alone.

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