Inspect an isolated AGY run

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the read payload: response, token usage, verification output, changed-file manifest, and optional external events. This goes beyond the schema and annotation alone.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and then compactly lists the returned content. There is no redundant wording or 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?

Given that this is a read-only tool with clear annotations and a relatively simple parameter set, the description covers the key outputs well. It could be more complete by acknowledging max_events and include_events behavior, but the main purpose and returned data categories are clear enough for an AI to select the tool confidently.

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 only 25%, so the description carries a heavy burden for parameter clarity. It does hint at include_events through 'optional external events,' but it does not explain the semantics of run_id or max_events, leaving those parameters underspecified.

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 ('Read') and a precise resource ('one project's run response, token usage, verification output, changed-file manifest, and optional external events'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from list-oriented siblings by emphasizing a single, specific 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?

The description implies the main usage: inspect a particular run's detailed result data. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools such as antigravity_list_runs or antigravity_get_transcript, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternative guidance.

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