Produce the run report

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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing that output is plain text, what content is included, and that Pro can additionally write the report to out_path as a .txt file. This extends beyond the annotation-only safety profile and has no contradiction.

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 efficient sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core output ('The run as plain text') and then specifies optional Pro file-writing behavior. Every phrase contributes useful 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, one-required-parameter reporting tool with annotations covering safety and an input schema covering all three parameters, the description explains the returned report contents and file-writing behavior. It does not specify exact formatting or error cases, but the absence of an output schema makes this acceptable for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the parameters are already fully documented: run identifies the run, out_path is Pro-only and optional, overwrite controls file replacement. The tool description only restates the out_path behavior ('Pro also writes it...') without adding new meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool produces a plain-text report of a run, enumerating the included contents (steps, marks, answers, notes, counts, signature). It is specific about the resource and output, though it does not explicitly contrast with run_show or run_status, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 when to use the tool: when a plain-text run report is needed, available on every tier, with optional file output for Pro. It does not give explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, and sibling tools like run_show and run_status suggest nearby choices, but no routing is provided.

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