get_run

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world false, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds the constraint that the run must be selected from list_runs, which is a useful behavioral detail, but it doesn't describe what 'hydrate' returns or any error behavior.

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 one short sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and includes an alternative in the second clause. Every word is meaningful; no waste.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, output schema present, and strong annotations. The description adequately covers the core usage and distinguishes from siblings, though terms like 'hydrate' and 'bounded interpretation' are left unexplained. Overall, sufficient for the tool's 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?

The schema has a single run_id with no description, and the tool description only hints that it comes from list_runs. This provides some context but doesn't fully explain the parameter format or constraints, leaving the agent to infer from the name and usage note.

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 the verb 'hydrate' to indicate loading a full run object, specifically one selected by list_runs, which distinguishes it from listing runs and from the analyze_* tools that provide interpretation. This is specific enough for an agent familiar with the domain.

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?

It explicitly states that get_run is for hydrating a run selected by list_runs, and that bounded interpretation should be done with analyze_* tools. This provides a clear when-to-use and an alternative, though it could be more explicit about not using it for interpretation.

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