get_run

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses that the local executor exiting does not auto-restart the model and that an unknown state signals a diagnostic situation.

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 dense sentence with the core action front-loaded and the caveat trailing. No wasted words, though cramming three distinct ideas (read, re-attach, diagnose) into one clause slightly muddies the structure.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should convey more about the run state it returns, but it only gestures at execution.state=unknown. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the missing parameter documentation and thin return guidance leave gaps for a diagnostic tool.

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 0% and the single required parameter relayRunId is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never explains what the run identifier is, where to obtain it, or its format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (读取) and resource (持久运行), plus the secondary effect of re-attaching event observation. This distinguishes it from list_runs and read_events, though it does not clearly separate it from close siblings like view_run and open_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?

Implies the read-and-observe context and notes that execution.state=unknown warrants diagnosis, which is weak guidance on when to use it. It never names an alternative (view_run, open_run, read_run_progress) or states a when-not condition, so routing among the many run-observation siblings is left to inference.

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