list_automation_runs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral context — the GET verb implies a read-only operation and the status filter enumerates all allowed values (running,completed,failed,cancelled,skipped). However, it says nothing about pagination semantics for the after/before/limit parameters, cursor format, or default behavior, which is a significant omission for a listing endpoint.

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 with no filler: the primary action is front-loaded, and the filter capability is stated immediately after. Both sentences earn their place and the status enum list is compactly integrated.

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?

Despite being a 5-parameter list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only the core call (id + status) and leaves after/before/limit entirely unexplained. An agent can make a basic filtered call but will likely misstep on pagination, ordering, or limit defaults, and has no description of the run objects returned. For a tool this complex, the definition is under-specified.

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 only 40% (id and status described; after, limit, before undocumented). The description adds real value for the status parameter by listing the complete allowed vocabulary, which the schema example only partially conveys. But it provides zero meaning for after, before, and limit — an agent cannot tell whether these are cursors, timestamps, or counts — and at low coverage the description was expected to compensate more.

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 states a specific verb and resource — "List an automation's runs" — and pins the exact operation with the REST path GET /automations/:id/runs. This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like list_automations (list automations) and get_automation_run (fetch a single run), even without explicit differentiation wording.

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 context is implied rather than stated: the endpoint path and 'an automation's runs' make clear you supply an automation id to retrieve its run history. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no exclusions (e.g., 'for a single run's detail, use get_automation_run'), so the agent must infer routing from the name and path alone.

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