Get a structured Harness run summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only modest context, that this is a derived 'current durable run snapshot' with 'stable' field names, and says nothing about staleness, caching, or how the projection relates to the live run state.

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?

A single dense sentence with the output field list front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the abstract phrasing ('project…snapshot…stable') costs some readability versus plain wording.

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 and annotations covering the safety profile, the missing return-format detail is not a gap. What is missing is routing context: in a namespace crowded with run-inspection siblings, an agent gets no signal about why it would choose this summary projection over get_run or status_run.

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 0% and the description never mentions runId, so it does not compensate for the undocumented parameter. The single required param is self-evidently a run identifier and the uuid pattern is enforced by the schema, keeping this at a middling baseline rather than poor.

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 the resource (a run) and enumerates the concrete fields the tool yields: status, model, permission, elapsed time, and next-action. That is enough to know what it produces, but the framing verb 'project…into stable…fields' is jargon and the entry does not distinguish this summary view from siblings such as get_run, status_run, or list_run_summaries.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the many other run-reading tools in the namespace (get_run, status_run, wait_run, list_run_summaries). No prerequisites or trigger conditions are given; the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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