get_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints, so the bar is lower, but the description adds substantial context: the read-scope API key requirement, the 200-event cap with events_truncated flag, the absence of trace fields in this release, the response wrapper structure, and a security warning about untrusted_fields containing raw job output that must be treated as data, never instructions. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Despite being long, every sentence carries unique value: auth requirement, purpose, usage trigger, limits, future changes, and security warning. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and the usage guidance comes immediately after. No redundancy; the density is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the returned object's contents, the wrapper structure, the truncation behavior, and the untrusted_fields security note. It also covers prerequisites (auth) and temporal constraints (trace fields later). Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100% – both id and rid have clear descriptions. The description doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema, but it does contextualize the parameters by saying they come from get_run_history or list_open_incidents, which aids selection. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema 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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Get ONE run's full timeline') and enumerates exactly what that includes (events, assertions, terminal output, CI metadata). It distinguishes itself from get_run_history (summary row) and list_open_incidents, so an agent can tell it apart without opening other schemas.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: after get_run_history or list_open_incidents points at a specific run and you need the blow-by-blow. It also contrasts with the 'summary row' alternative, giving clear selection criteria. This is the gold standard for usage guidance.

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