get_run_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what information is retrieved (status, plan output, relationships) and mentions the API endpoint format, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, provides usage guidance, includes the API endpoint, documents the parameter with format details, describes the return value, and references external documentation. Each section adds value, though the 'See:' reference could be integrated more smoothly.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate coverage of the tool's purpose, usage, parameter, and return value. However, it lacks details about the structure of the returned data (beyond mentioning it includes 'status, plan, and relationships') and doesn't address potential error conditions or authentication requirements that would be important for an API tool.

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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description provides the parameter name ('run_id'), explains its purpose ('The ID of the run to retrieve details for'), and specifies the expected format ('format: "run-xxxxxxxx"'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific run' and specifies it retrieves 'comprehensive information about a run including its current status, plan output, and relationship to other resources.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_plan_details' or 'get_apply_details' which might retrieve related but different information.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use to check run progress or results.' This gives a specific scenario when to use the tool. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or explicitly name alternative tools for related but different purposes (like using 'get_plan_details' for plan-specific information).

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