describe_run

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

The description clearly identifies the tool as read-only, which is a key behavioral trait. It also lists the information included, providing transparency beyond the absent annotations.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no fluff, and front-loads the key purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the simple input schema (one parameter, no output schema) and no annotations, the description is adequate but lacks explanation of the output_dir parameter, leaving a gap 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?

The description does not mention the single parameter (output_dir) at all. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate by explaining the parameter's purpose or usage, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 clearly states the tool returns a summary of a RunRecord listing specific elements (metrics, validation status, lineage, artifact counts, decision_facts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_runs and validate_run.

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 use for decision-making with a 'decision-facts oriented summary' and notes it is read-only. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though context with siblings provides some guidance.

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