getRun

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states 'retrieves details,' indicating a read-only operation, which is accurate for a GET-style tool. However, it does not specify that no modifications occur or elaborate on side effects (though none are expected). The description is minimally transparent but sufficient for simple retrieval.

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 (bilingual versions count as one idea) that communicates the core purpose efficiently. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words.

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 retrieval tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could benefit from briefly listing what details are returned (e.g., status, assigned user), but given the low complexity and clear purpose, it does not leave major gaps.

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 input schema has one parameter (runId) with 100% description coverage (type and description provided). The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, such as format, constraints, or relationship to other data. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when schema fully documents the parameter.

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 clearly states it retrieves details of a specific test run by ID, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like getRuns (list) and getTest (test-level retrieval) by specifying 'run'. The bilingual text does not hinder clarity.

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 usage when you have a run ID and need its details, but it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., getRuns for listing, getResultsForRun for results). The purpose is clear enough for basic inference but lacks explicit guidance.

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