yaaif_ops_desktop_run_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly declares READ-ONLY, which is a valuable behavioral signal, and describes the output as 'run detail + failure findings'. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, size limits, or any potential side effects beyond the read-only hint.

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 that immediately signals READ-ONLY and states the resource. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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 tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It omits what run_id refers to, how the optional parameters affect the result, and what the return structure looks like. An agent would need to infer much from the schema and sibling tools.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema documents three of four parameters. The description adds little beyond naming run_id as the input; it does not explain what run_id represents, its format, or how it relates to the other params. The description does not compensate for the undocumented run_id.

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 states the action (get), the resource (desktop worker run detail plus failure findings), and the key parameter (run_id). It clearly distinguishes from list tools by focusing on a single run's detail and failure findings, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it complements yaaif_ops_desktop_runs_list or how it differs from yaaif_ops_ambient_run_get. The READ-ONLY label hints at safety but not selection criteria.

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