view_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: this opens an interactive real-time panel and reveals a live event timeline rather than returning a static record, which materially changes how an agent should treat the result.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the purpose, the payload it shows, then the exclusions via a semicolon clause. No filler; every clause carries 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-parameter view tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to select and expect. The only real gap is the undocumented parameter, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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% for the single required relayRunId, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'The specified Cursor Relay run' only restates that some run is targeted — it gives no hint about ID format, where to obtain it, or behavior for an invalid ID.

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?

Names a specific verb and deliverable (opens a read-only real-time panel for a run) and enumerates exactly what it surfaces: status, event timeline, final output. It is clearly distinct from mutating siblings, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from read-oriented siblings like get_run, read_events, or read_run_progress.

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?

Provides explicit negative routing — it does not start, resume, cancel, or modify runs — which tells the agent when NOT to pick it. However, it names no positive alternative (e.g., use get_run for a static snapshot), so the when-to-use side 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.