Get ToolQuest Run

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive semantics, so the description only needs to add useful behavioral detail. It adds that no event is appended and that score is only present when terminal, which is meaningful beyond the annotations. No contradiction 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, followed by a compact field list and a one-sentence behavioral caveat. Every sentence adds value.

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 annotations covering read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, the description supplies enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. The only additional context, non-appending behavior, is included.

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 100%, with runId described as an opaque ID from start_run. The description adds the 'persisted run' context but does not need to explain runId further; baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 names a specific action ('Resume a persisted run by reading'), a concrete resource (current snapshot), and the exact fields returned (status, stateVersion, stateHash, event count, score). The closing 'This does not append an event' separates it from event-producing siblings like start_run or replay_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?

It clearly states the context: use this to resume/read a persisted run's current state. It also states a non-behavior that distinguishes it from event producers, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or give a when-not-to-use condition beyond not appending an event.

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