wafle_agents_runs_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by disclosing the return content (full conversation + audit log with enumerated step types), which helps the agent anticipate the response. It does not contradict annotations; it complements them. Minor gaps like pagination or error behavior are not critical for a read-only getter.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb-resource pair and then pads with a precise enumeration of step types. Every part is informative with no fluff, achieving high information density in minimal space.

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 read-only getter with two parameters, the description sufficiently covers resource, scope, and return content. Since there is no output schema, enumerating the step types helps complete the picture. It does not cover error conditions or preconditions, but those are less crucial for this tool given the readOnlyHint and simple parameter set.

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 description does not add any meaning to the parameters beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 50% with slug described but run_id lacking explanation; the description neither describes run_id nor clarifies the relationship between slug and run_id. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description misses the opportunity to compensate for the missing run_id documentation.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific run'), and specifies the scope ('specific run') which differentiates it from sibling tools like wafle_agents_runs_list. It also details the content ('full conversation + audit log') with the exact step types, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 when one needs a specific run's full conversation/audit log, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like wafle_agents_runs_list or mention any exclusions. Sibling tool names provide context but the description itself lacks direct comparison.

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