get_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read operation but does not confirm safety, authentication needs, error handling for invalid run_id, or rate limits. This is insufficient for safe agentic use.

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?

Two sentences: first specifies when to use, second details return content. No wasted words, front-loaded purpose.

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?

For a simple single-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers purpose and return content adequately. Missing details like error responses, but overall sufficient given tool complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with the run_id parameter fully described as 'The run_id returned by start_crew_run'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond this; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the status of a specific Crews run and lists what the response contains (stage progress, token usage, failure artifact). This differentiates it from siblings like start_crew_run (which initiates runs) and list_runs (which lists runs).

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 tells when to call the tool but does not contrast it with alternatives like list_runs for retrieving status of multiple runs or start_crew_run for initiating. Without explicit guidance, an agent may misselect among related tools.

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