get_run

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, yet the description adds genuinely new context: the exact content returned, the deliberate omission of metric/file catalogs, and a prompt-injection warning that returned training content is untrusted data. The untrusted-content disclosure is behaviorally important and absent from structured fields.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences, each earning its place: one for scope, one for the sibling handoff, one for the safety caveat. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well by enumerating returned sections and exclusions. The only gap is the undocumented include_config flag, which slightly limits completeness for a two-parameter tool.

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 50%: the uid description in the schema is high quality ('Internal uid from list_runs, NOT the W&B run name'), but include_config has no documentation anywhere. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 for partially covered schema 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?

Names a specific verb ('Read') and enumerates the exact resource scope: run metadata, config, summary, imported session boundaries, and distributed writer state. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from list_metrics/list_files, so an agent can place it among the 16 siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states what the tool does NOT cover and routes the agent to list_metrics/list_files for the full catalogs, which is a clear use/don't-use boundary. It doesn't address adjacent siblings like diagnose_run or compare_runs, but the core alternative is named.

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