Get World Model Evaluation Run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety and side-effect profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond 'Fetch a single...', such as return format or error behavior. Since annotations already provide the key transparency, a 3 is appropriate—not lower, but the description does not enrich beyond the structured metadata.

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, focused sentence: 'Fetch a single evaluation run by its id.' It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler, and every word contributes value. This is an excellent example of conciseness.

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 get-by-id tool with one parameter, a clear schema, and strong annotations, this description is complete. It accurately states what is returned (a single evaluation run) and the required input. There is no output schema, but the tool's simplicity means the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%: the only parameter 'run_id' is described as 'The evaluation run id'. The tool description says 'by its id', which reinforces but does not add new meaning. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is correct.

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 specific verb 'Fetch' combined with the resource 'a single evaluation run' and the method 'by its id'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'lyzr_world_model_list_evaluation_runs' (list all) and 'lyzr_world_model_create_evaluation_run' (create). The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 description implies usage: you need a specific run_id to fetch a single run. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the required id. The guidance is implicit and minimal, so it earns a mid-level score.

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