Read a stored run

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that this is a read operation, supports filtering, and defaults to the most recent run when runId is omitted. However, it doesn't describe the return format, pagination behavior, or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then filters, then default behavior. No redundant words.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately communicates the tool's purpose and common usage, but it leaves out details about the response structure and how limit interacts with results, which would be valuable for a tool meant to drill into full details.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all six parameters (100% coverage), and the description's mention of filters adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The only additional note about omitting runId is already present in the schema.

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 uses the verb 'Reads' and identifies the resource as 'a stored run', specifying it provides 'full detail' in contrast to a truncated digest. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that run or discover tests.

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 explicitly states the use case: 'for drilling into what a run digest truncated', and provides clear filter guidance. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the contrast with siblings is implicit; this is sufficient context.

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