get_detached_capture

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context by describing it as 'Reconnect to bounded progress and lifecycle status', indicating that the tool provides progress and lifecycle information, not just the raw capture data. This goes beyond the tool name and helps set expectations, though it doesn't detail edge cases like invalid run_id.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action 'Reconnect', and every word contributes meaning. There is no redundancy, filler, or overly technical jargon. It is concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's low complexity (one param), the presence of an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is largely complete. It states what the tool does and what statuses it returns. It could be more explicit about the exact meaning of 'bounded progress', but the output schema likely covers return structure, so no critical information is missing.

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 schema has one required parameter run_id with no description (coverage 0%). The description compensates by specifying 'for one detached run', which directly links run_id to a detached capture run. This adds clarity beyond the schema's bare 'Run Id' and disambiguates from general run IDs. Despite not explaining where to obtain run_id, the single-param context is simple enough that this is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb 'Reconnect' and resource 'one detached run', and further specifies what it provides: 'bounded progress and lifecycle status'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like start_detached_capture or cancel_detached_capture, which are about starting or stopping captures, and from generic get_run which doesn't target detached captures.

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 tool's usage is implied by the description: it is for reconnecting to status of a detached run. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no mention of alternatives like get_run or start_detached_capture. It does not state exclusions or prerequisites, so it falls to 'implied usage' rather than explicit guidance.

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