describe_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read-only' which covers safety, but it does not disclose whether the tool works on any run, requires a specific run state, or has performance considerations. The listed contents add some value.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and avoids unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 minimal input schema (1 optional param) and no output schema, the description covers the output contents but misses contextual details like how the run is identified or the role of output_dir. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 only parameter, output_dir, is not mentioned in the description. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's default value. The agent must guess the parameter's purpose.

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 compact, decision-facts oriented summary of a RunRecord with specific contents (metrics, validation status, lineage, artifact counts, decision_facts). It identifies the resource and the nature of the output, distinguishing it from mutation tools like run_experiment.

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 the tool is used to get a summary, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_runs or validate_run. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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