get_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is parsed and lists the categories, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential errors, authentication, or other behavioral aspects like what happens if the run is not found.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output content.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a good job of listing the key output components (claims, alternatives, declined pairs, triage). It covers the primary need for an agent deciding whether to call this tool, though it lacks detail on return format or edge cases.

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 67%, so the schema documents access_token and investigation_id. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. run_id is self-explanatory from the tool name, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema description.

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 retrieves a single attribution run and specifies the content of the parsed output (claims, alternatives, declined pairs, triage). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_runs (plural) and get_attribution_job (job vs run).

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 implies usage for retrieving one specific run's parsed output, but does not explicitly state when to use this over list_runs or other alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. It provides minimal context, mostly implied by the word 'single'.

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