yaaif_ops_ambient_run_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly carries the behavioral burden by explicitly declaring the operation READ-ONLY, which signals no mutation side effects. It also discloses what the result contains: run detail, diagnostic failures, and run_path data. It does not describe error behavior, auth requirements, or size limits, but the read-only declaration and result summary provide meaningful transparency.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It leads with the important READ-ONLY safety signal, states the resource and operation, then lists the distinct result components concisely.

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 description covers the core purpose and return categories, but with no output schema and no annotations, it does not fully describe the return structure, failure diagnostic shape, or how max_chars/max_items/summary_only affect results. The tool is relatively simple, so the gaps are moderate rather than severe.

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 75%: max_chars, max_items, and summary_only already have meaningful descriptions in the schema. Run_id has no schema description, and the tool description only mentions 'for a run_id' without adding format or semantics. The description adds little parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 clearly states a read-only detail operation for an ambient workflow run identified by run_id, and enumerates the returned content: diagnostic failures and run_path coverage/path/current step/canvas URL. It is unambiguous about the resource and operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling yaaif_ambient_run_get.

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: call this when you need ambient workflow run detail plus diagnostic failure information for a specific run_id. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools such as yaaif_ambient_run_get, yaaif_ambient_runs_list, or yaaif_ops_ambient_worker_logs.

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