get-actor-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. It states the tool returns information but does not disclose potential side effects (none obvious for a get), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The waitSecs parameter hints at polling behavior but is not explained beyond the schema. Description is neutral and does not contradict any annotations since none exist.

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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the returned fields. No fluff or repetition; every element adds information. Ideal conciseness for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description carries the burden of indicating what the tool returns. It enumerates key fields (status, storages, stats, summary, nextStep), which is sufficient for most agents. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., what happens if the run does not exist) or error behaviors, but given the simplicity of the operation nominal completeness is high. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced, which slightly lowers the score.

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 input schema already provides clear descriptions for both runId (required) and waitSecs (max wait time). The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema covers, so it meets the baseline but provides no extra clarity on how parameters affect the call.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves detailed information about a specific Actor runasi and enumerates the data returned (status, storages, stats, summary, nextStep). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-dataset-items and get-key-value-store-record, which fetch specific storage data rather than the run itself. The verb 'Get' and resource 'Actor run' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 when you need run-level metadata but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. It does not state when to use this instead of get-dataset-items or abort-actor-run, and it lacks exclusionary guidance (e.g., 'use get-dataset-items to fetch raw data'). Adequate but not proactive.

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