get_mapping_run

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It only states 'Get status and details', implying a read operation but not explicitly declaring it non-destructive or indicating any behavioral traits (e.g., auth requirements, idempotency). The minimal description does not sufficiently inform the agent of expected 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no redundant or irrelevant content, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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 has low complexity (1 required parameter, output schema present). The description adequately states the high-level output ('status and details'), but lacks specifics (e.g., what status fields are returned). Given the output schema exists, this is minimally sufficient but not complete enough to guide parameter usage or expected outcomes.

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 lists one parameter with no description (0% coverage). The tool description adds no semantic context for 'run_id', such as its format or source. The schema's title 'Run Id' is basic, and the description fails to enhance understanding beyond the schema itself.

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 status and details of a mapping run, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('mapping run'). Sibling tools like 'create_mapping_run', 'cancel_mapping_run', and 'list_mapping_runs' show that this tool is distinct for fetching a single run's details.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_mapping_runs' or 'get_inference_run'. The description does not mention context for usage or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer without explicit direction.

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