get_detached_capture

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature of the tool. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the resource being accessed; it does not clarify what 'bounded progress' means or how reconnection behaves if the run no longer exists. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no filler, and the key object ('one detached run') is placed at the end. It is appropriately concise, though 'bounded progress' is an unusual phrase that slightly reduces clarity.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is mostly complete. The main gap is the unclear meaning of 'bounded progress' and the lack of explicit guidance on when to use this rather than other status/query tools.

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%, so the description carries the burden for the single required parameter. The phrase 'for one detached run' implies run_id identifies a detached run, but the description does not explicitly define run_id, its expected format, or its relationship to start_detached_capture. The parameter name is mostly self-explanatory, giving partial credit.

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 specific resource ('one detached run') and the information type ('bounded progress and lifecycle status'), and 'Reconnect' suggests re-attaching to an existing operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_detached_capture and cancel_detached_capture, though 'bounded progress' is somewhat jargon-heavy.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent recovering or checking on a detached run would use this tool. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it instead of related tools like get_run, get_lifecycle_gaps, or the other detached_capture operations, nor does it name alternatives.

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