get_flow_run

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description warns that it uses Microsoft's unofficial api.flow.microsoft.com endpoint, labels it unsupported, and cautions that behavior may change. It also explains that original run properties are under `raw` and that per-action breakdown appears only when the API provides it, adding valuable context not captured in annotations.

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?

Four concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then a useful output note, parameter summary, and example. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description covers key return fields, parameter requirements, an example invocation, and a critical unsupported-endpoint caveat. It adequately prepares the agent for debugging a run, though a little more on response structure would make it fully complete.

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 100% with each parameter already described (e.g., 'Omit to use the user's default environment'). The description reiterates the parameters but adds little new meaning, with the exception of a usage example. Per the rubric, high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3.

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's function: 'Get one run in detail for debugging' and lists specific outputs (status, timing, triggering action, first-failure error). It differentiates from siblings like list_flow_runs (which lists runs) and get_flow (which retrieves flow details).

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 phrase 'for debugging' offers clear context for when to use the tool, and parameter provenance ('from list_flow_runs', 'from list_flows') indicates dependencies. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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