Get a structured Harness run summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotenceHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the context that the summary is projected from a durable snapshot into stable fields, but it does not disclose edge behaviors such as errors, missing runs, or staleness. This is acceptable given the annotations but not rich.

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 sentence with no filler. It is compact and places the core action first. However, words like 'Project' and 'durable run snapshot' are slightly jargon-heavy, which reduces immediate readability.

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?

The tool has a single parameter, generous annotations, and an output schema, so return values need not be explained. Still, the description leaves gaps around when to select this tool over closely related run tools, and it provides no context about how the summary relates to the live run state.

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 description does not mention the runId parameter at all. The parameter name and UUID format are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the total lack of schema-level description coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Project') and a specific resource ('current durable run snapshot'), and lists the stable output fields. It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_run, which could also plausibly return run information.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus get_run, status_run, open_run, or wait_run. The phrase 'durable run snapshot' hints at a read-oriented summary, but there is no explicit when-to-use, alternative, or exclusion.

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