get_run_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful output trait: results are bounded scalars with no field arrays. However, it says nothing about side effects, required permissions, or error behavior, so transparency is only partial.

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 single sentence is compact and starts with the verb, which is good. But it is under-sized: it omits the run context entirely, so this is under-specification rather than efficient completeness.

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?

Despite having an output schema and only one parameter, the description is incomplete in context. It never connects the result to the run_id input or to the run lifecycle, and the sibling tool set includes overlapping get/list operations that the description does not help disambiguate.

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 mention run_id at all. The only parameter is a required string named run_id, so the name is self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional semantics and does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 names a verb ('return') and a result type ('bounded scalar results'), but never says these are results for a run or what a run summary contains. It is not a tautology, but it is too vague to fully differentiate from sibling get/status/list tools.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. There is no mention of when to choose get_run_summary over get_run_status or list_run_artifacts, nor any caveat that this tool intentionally avoids arrays. The only hint is the phrase 'without any field arrays,' which is not enough to route an agent.

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