get_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds the auto-reconnect behavior after process restart, which is useful context not captured by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose error behavior (e.g., what if the run doesn't exist) or whether the state includes partial output.

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 purpose and a key behavioral detail. It is concise and well-structured, with no superfluous words.

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 tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks details about the return value (e.g., what 'current state' contains), error scenarios, or whether it paginates. The auto-reconnect note adds some context, but more would be needed for an agent to anticipate behavior fully.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions). The sole parameter 'relayRunId' is not explained in the description; the name hints at a run identifier but the description doesn't elaborate on format, origin, or relationship to start_run. The description does not compensate for the missing schema 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 the action ('get current state') and the specific resource (a persistent run). It distinguishes from siblings like list_runs (which lists all runs) and wait_run (which waits), making its purpose clear, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when to prefer it over list_runs or wait_run, or any exclusions. The description implies usage for reading run state but leaves selection to the agent.

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