postfader_get_run

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description agrees with them by saying 'Read'. It adds useful behavioral context by defining the run states covered ('current or journaled') and what the call returns (outputs and operation receipts).

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and return contents with no filler. Every word contributes.

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 one fully documented parameter, an output schema, and annotation coverage for safety/idempotency, the description provides enough context to use the tool correctly. The mention of 'current or journaled' and the returned artifacts fills the remaining practical gap.

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%, so run_id is already fully documented with a pattern and a meaningful description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is necessary given 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 a specific verb, 'Read', and names the resource: a current or journaled run, along with its generated outputs and operation receipts. This clearly distinguishes it from run-list or run-execution siblings like postfader_list_runs and postfader_execute_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 phrase 'current or journaled run' gives clear context for when to call this tool: when you need the details, outputs, or receipts of a specific run. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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