Get Run Output

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that results are 'parsed, human-readable' and enumerates the returned fields. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, note any auth/permission needs, or explain the fetch_logs download behavior, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then uses a compact bullet list for the return fields. Efficient overall, though enumerating return fields is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

For a simple read tool with a full output schema, the description is largely sufficient; it needn't explain return values and even does so. The main gap is the absence of guidance on how it relates to get_run_status and the run_script family.

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 100%, so the schema already documents run_id, fetch_logs, and workspace_name, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the output artifacts from a completed script run'), which distinguishes it from nearby siblings like get_run_status and get_run_sessions. It never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings, so differentiation relies on inference from the resource noun rather than a direct comparison.

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?

'from a completed script run' implies usage after a run finishes, giving implied context. However, it names no alternative (e.g., get_run_status vs this tool) and states no when-not condition, so the agent must infer routing. The 'completed' framing is also muddied by listing RUNNING as a possible status.

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