get_run_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions what the report contains but omits any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., run must be completed), or permissions. The minimal description leaves many behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It quickly conveys the core output facets. Could be improved with structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) but is efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value details are covered elsewhere. The description explains what is in the report, filling that gap. However, it misses operational context: when to call this vs siblings, prerequisites, and whether the run must be completed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning for the two parameters. It does not. There is no explanation of what project_root or run_id represent, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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 lists key components of the report (summary, judge verdict, suspicious turns, paths), making the output clear. However, it lacks an explicit verb stating the action (e.g., 'retrieves' or 'generates'), relying on the tool name. Distinguishes from siblings like get_run_log (log vs full report) but could be more explicit about scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_run_log, get_run_status, or compare_runs. The agent receives no decision-making support for tool selection.

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