get grpo run weights

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: presigned URLs expire in 15 minutes, calls are audit-logged as weight exports, OWNER/ADMIN permission is required, feature-flag gating returns 404, and partial checkpoints are handled differently. This is rich and useful transparency.

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 long but every sentence carries operational value: purpose, timing, endpoint, auth scope, response shape, error semantics, expiry, audit logging, and feature-flag behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage condition before diving into return details and edge cases.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies the return JSON structure, field meanings, sort order, partial-checkpoint semantics, error cases, permission requirements, expiry behavior, and storage-unavailable handling. An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly and interpret its response.

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 already fully documents the single `id` parameter, including the requirement that the run be in a terminal status (COMPLETED, STOPPED, or FAILED). The description mostly repeats that status constraint; it adds error-case context (400/404/403) but does not add significant meaning about the parameter itself beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb ('Get... presigned download links'), a specific resource ('a finished online-RL (GRPO) run's trained adapter files'), and a clear goal ('so you can self-host the weights'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_grpo_run, which is about run metadata, not weight export.

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 clearly states when to use it: after a run completes or stops with a partial checkpoint, and explicitly excludes ACTIVE and OVERBUDGET runs. It does not name an alternative tool to use instead, but the timing and error conditions provide strong contextual guidance.

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