get_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that it returns the current state, but it does not mention whether the operation is safe/read-only (implicit from 'get'), error handling for invalid run_ids, or any caveats about staleness. This lack of detail is a notable gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the purpose. It avoids redundant phrasing and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, output schema provided), and the description is enough for a basic getter. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it relative to siblings and does not mention any prerequisites like 'after submission' beyond the word 'submitted.' Overall, it is minimally adequate but leaves room for more context.

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 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the run_id parameter. While the parameter name and type are self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning about required format, source, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Return the current state of a submitted run' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a read operation for run status. It distinguishes itself from siblings like cancel_run and submit_plan by focusing on state retrieval, not modification.

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 implies usage after a run is submitted, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_report or cancel_run. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving usage to be inferred from the tool name and context.

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