prufa_get_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, idempotency, or required permissions. It does not. It only states the operation, leaving the agent uncertain about safety or side effects.

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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be rephrased to include essential details without adding length.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose but fails to mention return format, error scenarios, or whether it returns the full run object. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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%, meaning the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain what 'run_id' is, how to obtain it, or any constraints. The single parameter is completely undocumented.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('run'), and the purpose ('status by id'). It also lists possible status values, which adds specificity and distinguishes from sibling tools like prufa_list_runs (which lists runs) and prufa_get_flow (which gets flows).

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 when you have a run ID and need its status, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., prufa_list_runs for finding runs). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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