get_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context about which fields are returned, but does not disclose response shape, pagination, or error behavior, which are not covered elsewhere.

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 one concise, well-structured sentence with no filler. It states the tool's purpose directly and front-loades the key output attributes.

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 get-by-id tool with a single documented parameter and annotations covering read-only/open-world behavior, the description adequately lists the core returned fields. It lacks explicit notes on response format or error cases, but those are not essential for correct invocation.

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 single required parameter run_id is fully documented in the schema with 'The run's id.' The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a run'), and lists the exact attributes returned (players, times, game/category, status, system, variable values). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like list_runs or get_leaderboard.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as list_runs or get_world_record, and it does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and parameter.

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