get_agent_run_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses what the tool returns (full results, events, git diff) but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, error behavior, or any prerequisites. The 'get' prefix implies read-only but is not explicit.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the purpose and key return contents. No extra words or repetition.

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?

While the tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, the description lacks workflow context. It does not mention how to obtain a worker_id or when the report is available (e.g., after run completion). It is adequately complete for a basic 'get' but could be stronger with sibling references.

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 has one parameter (worker_id) with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain what worker_id means or how it relates to an agent run, offering only a weak inference that it identifies the run. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently populate the parameter.

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 retrieves a report containing full results, recent events, and Git diff for an agent run. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_agent_runs (which likely lists runs) and apply_agent_run (which applies changes).

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need detailed run information. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives, despite sibling tools existing that could be contrasted.

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