get_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the baseline is lower; the description adds context by stating the run must come from list_runs and that this tool hydrates rather than interprets, which is useful behavioral framing beyond the annotations. 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?

Two short clauses with no filler; the main action and source are front-loaded and the alternative is given in the second clause. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and routing. It leaves 'hydrate' and 'bounded interpretation' somewhat jargon-heavy, but the output schema and annotations fill most remaining gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden; it implies run_id is the identifier of a run produced by list_runs, which is the key semantic an agent needs. It doesn't spell out formatting or validation, but for a single string parameter this is sufficient compensation.

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?

States a concrete action ('hydrate') on a concrete resource ('a run'), anchors the source of that run to list_runs, and contrasts itself with analyze_* tools. This allows an agent to distinguish get_run from the many get_*/extract_*/analyze_* siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly positions the tool in a workflow: first list_runs, then hydrate a selected run. It also gives an exclusion rule: if bounded interpretation is needed, use an analyze_* tool. That is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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