get_run_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states that detailed information is returned, but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation (though obvious from 'get'), any error conditions, or what constitutes 'detailed'. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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, short sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the core purpose. It contains no superfluous information.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description should explain what 'detailed information' includes or how the response is structured. It does not, and with only one parameter and no annotations, the context remains incomplete for an agent to anticipate the tool's output or edge cases.

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 explain the 'run_id' parameter. While the parameter name is self-evident, the description adds no extra context about its format, required syntax, or how it is used. For a low-coverage schema, the description does not compensate.

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 action ('get') and the resource ('detailed information about a specific run'), making it distinct from sibling list tools like 'recent_runs' and 'list_jobs'. However, it does not explicitly mention that it operates based on a run_id, making it slightly less precise than a 5.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not say 'use this when you need details for one run' or 'use list_* to find runs first', leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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