get_run

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

With no annotations, the description conveys that this is a read operation ('Read') and introduces the concept of 'append-only events,' signaling non-destructive behavior. It adds the recovery use case, but does not describe potential prerequisites or side effects, making it slightly above average.

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?

Single sentence with high information density. The verb is front-loaded, and every phrase adds value: resource type, operation, and a concrete use case.

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?

The description covers the tool's core function and a key scenario (reconnect/compaction recovery). With an output schema present, the return structure is handled elsewhere. Minor gap: no explicit guidance on how this fits with sibling run lifecycle tools, so a 4.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the input schema, so the description does not need to elaborate. The tool description does not mention parameters, but the schema covers them fully; baseline 3 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?

The description uses the verb 'Read' and clearly identifies the resource (run/work-item projections and append-only events). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like record_run_event and begin_run by focusing on reading state for recovery scenarios.

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 implies usage for reconnect or compaction recovery, providing a clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or name them, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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