get_run_details

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

The word 'Retrieve' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the bullets disclose what types of data are returned. There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden, but it does not mention edge cases, error conditions, or access requirements.

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 concise, front-loaded with the action and resource, and uses a scannable bullet list. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary filler.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return structure, and the bullet list gives a useful overview. Minor gaps around parameter semantics and usage guidance prevent a perfect score.

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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does not explain entity, project_name, or run_id beyond their self-evident names, and 'entity' in W&B context (username/team) is left ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('W&B run'), and the bullet list clarifies the scope of information. It does not explicitly differentiate from list_wandb_runs, but the detail-oriented framing makes the distinction sufficiently clear.

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?

The purpose implies use when detailed information about a single run is needed rather than a list of runs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.

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