Render the deterministic Markdown report for an existing run by providing its run ID, enabling offline review of alpha research results.
Render the deterministic Markdown report for one existing run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | ||
| markdown | Yes | ||
| automatic_submission_available | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'deterministic' trait, which conveys that the same run_id always produces the same report—valuable context beyond the schema. It also implies the run must exist, though it doesn't elaborate on error handling.
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, efficient sentence with no redundancy. The core purpose and key trait ('deterministic') are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable. 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?
The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the essential semantics: a deterministic Markdown report for an existing run. It could be more explicit about error cases (e.g., run not found) or prerequisites, but given the low complexity (1 param) and strong annotations, it is reasonably complete.
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 must compensate for the single parameter run_id. It implies run_id identifies the run ('one existing run'), but does not explain format, constraints, or any additional semantics beyond the schema's type and title. This is minimal compensation for a parameter with no schema-level description.
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 states a specific verb ('Render') and a specific output ('deterministic Markdown report') for a targeted resource ('one existing run'), making the tool's purpose clear. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like alpha_run_status or alpha_run_stop by focusing on report generation rather than lifecycle operations, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention conditions for use, when not to use it, or alternative tools that might be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.