get_playground_run

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool is read-only (gets a run) and describes returned data, but does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or additional behavioral constraints beyond the scope mention.

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 concise sentences: first states action and output, second adds scope and conditional context. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Description covers the return data adequately for a simple get tool but lacks parameter descriptions and error handling details. With no output schema or annotations, it meets minimal requirements but leaves gaps in completeness.

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 coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions in the schema. Description adds no meaning to run_id or competition_id, merely mentioning 'one Playground run' without explaining what these parameters represent or their format.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'one Playground run', specifies returned data (params, summary, timing) and conditional data for Lean competitions (verdicts[]). Distinct from sibling list_playground_runs which retrieves multiple runs.

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?

Mentions scope 'playground.read' implying authorization requirement, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_playground_runs or cancel_playground_run. Usage is implied by the 'get one' purpose, but lacks explicit guidance.

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