local_gpu_get_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get the current persisted state' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is appropriate. However, it does not disclose error behavior, whether the state is always available, or whether any special conditions apply (e.g., whether the run must be finalized). For a simple getter, this is acceptable but not rich.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no redundant information, and the phrasing is direct and front-loaded with the verb.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema (which presumably documents return values), a short description is somewhat acceptable. However, the absence of usage guidance relative to sibling tools and the lack of behavioral details (e.g., error handling) make it only minimally complete for a tool in a larger workflow context.

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 only parameter, run_id, is documented in the schema as a required string with minLength 1, but the schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no additional meaning. The tool name and context hint that run_id identifies a run, but there is no guidance on where to obtain it, its format, or potential constraints. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a clear verb 'Get' and specifies the resource as 'the current persisted state of a visual-asset run.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that start runs (local_gpu_start_run), generate images (local_gpu_generate_image), or inspect workflows (local_gpu_inspect_workflow). It could be slightly more explicit about how it differs from other 'get' or inspection tools, but it is adequately specific.

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 such as local_gpu_inspect_workflow or local_gpu_list_profiles. It does not state exclusion criteria or mention any prerequisites. Users are left to infer the appropriate context from the tool's name and brief purpose.

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