status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a read-only operation through 'Get', but does not disclose additional behaviors such as failure modes, repeated-call safety, or permission requirements. It adds little beyond the basic action.

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?

One concise sentence with no redundancy. The core action and returned data categories are front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

The output schema covers return values, and the description clearly states the tool's purpose and the run it targets. However, it omits any usage guidance or behavioral caveats; for a simple read-only status tool this is mostly complete but not exhaustive.

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 a single run_id parameter with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The phrase 'for a run' maps run_id to the target run, but adds no detail about format or source. The property title 'Run Id' is self-explanatory, making this minimally adequate.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'run' and enumerates exactly what is returned: lifecycle state, outcome, and current artifact counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'runs' (listing runs) and 'result' (likely final output), even without explicitly naming them.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'result' or 'check'. The only cue is the implied condition that you need a run's lifecycle state, outcome, and artifact counts, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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