Read the full transcript of a run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It uses 'Returns' and 'audit' to clearly indicate a read-only operation, and specifies the content includes tool calls. It doesn't mention potential large payloads or rate limits, but the schema's maxChars parameter hints at truncation, and the description is honest about the scope.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function and followed by a usage cue. No filler words or redundant information.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description plus schema fully defines the tool's behavior. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit statement of what is returned (every message with tool calls).

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both runId and maxChars, so the description need not explain parameters. It adds no additional parameter details, staying at the baseline of 3.

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 'Returns the complete conversation of a run's session — every message with its tool calls.' This identifies the exact resource (run's session) and action (returns transcript), and differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on the full audit trail rather than a summary.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to audit what the subagent actually did when the summary is not enough,' providing a clear condition for when to select this tool. Though it doesn't name a specific alternative, it refers to 'the summary' as an implicit alternative, which is sufficient context.

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