Training Get

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description carries less burden. However, it adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no mention of what happens on a missing ID, what the two source systems imply, pagination, or permissions. The two-store framing is more purpose than 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, both resource types, and the lookup key are all in the first clause.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no prose, but with 0% parameter documentation the description leaves the source-selection behavior and ID semantics undefined for a tool spanning two distinct backends. Given the rich sibling set, it is too thin to route or invoke confidently.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: run_id format (ID from which system?) and the source parameter (default 'auto', with no enumeration) are wholly unexplained. Critically, the meaning of run_id depends on the unstated source resolution, which is the key ambiguity an agent would need 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (Tuner workflow record / Tinker training run) keyed by ID, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling training_list and training_stop. It does not, however, differentiate itself from recipe_get or checkpoint_get, the other singular 'get by ID' tools in the family.

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 no indication of when to use this retrieval tool versus training_list, training_metrics, training_logs, or recipe_get, and states no precondition beyond the word 'by ID'. The agent must infer routing 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.