get_run_journal

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description is not required to restate it. It instead adds non-obvious behavioral context: the journal is redacted and omits page text, credentials, and field values, which sets correct expectations about what data will be missing. It stops short of describing the event format or ordering.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the redaction caveat. Every clause earns its place by telling the agent what it gets and what it won't get.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key data-availability caveat. It is nearly complete; only the journal's structure, ordering, or pagination behavior is left unspecified.

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 0% and the single run_id parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. "For a run" implies run_id is a run identifier, but it adds no format, source, or sourcing guidance (e.g., where to obtain the id). With only one self-evident parameter the gap is small, so a baseline 3 is fair.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Read") with a specific resource ("the redacted event journal for a run"), so the agent knows exactly what operation it performs. It does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, but none of the siblings (run_browser, observe_window, cancel_run) overlap with journal retrieval, so confusion is unlikely.

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?

Usage is only implied: reading a run's journal is the obvious way to inspect what happened during a run, and the sibling list contains no competing journal-reading tool. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives, so the agent must infer the context.

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