get_run

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 states only the basic action ('Get a run by ID') without any information about permissions required, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the run doesn't exist. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 extremely concise with just four words, front-loading the essential action and resource. There's no wasted language, making it efficient for quick understanding, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'run' is, how it relates to other resources (e.g., experiments), or what data is returned. For a tool in a context with multiple sibling tools, more context is needed to ensure proper use.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter 'run_id' has no documentation in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by implying the parameter is an ID for a run, but doesn't specify format, constraints, or where to obtain valid IDs. This insufficiently compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Get a run by ID' clearly states the action (get) and resource (run), but it's vague about what a 'run' represents in this context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_experiment_runs' or 'get_model_versions', leaving ambiguity about the specific resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_experiment_runs' (plural) and 'get_experiment' (singular), there's no indication whether this is for retrieving a single run versus a list, or how it relates to other tools in the server.

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