Policy Runs for Policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context. It confirms the read nature but does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or data freshness.

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?

A single, clear sentence that front-loads the core action and filtering options. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is adequate for core functionality. However, it does not address all parameters (summary_only, output_format) or provide context on sorting options or default behaviors, leaving some gaps for a 5-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?

The description adds meaning for policy_uuid ('by UUID') and hints at filtering by days and sort order, covering 2 of 5 parameters. Since schema has 0% description coverage, the description partially compensates but omits summary_only and output_format entirely.

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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving execution runs for a specific policy by UUID, which matches the name. However, it does not distinguish from the very similar sibling tool 'policy_runs_by_policy', preventing a top score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'policy_runs_by_policy' or other run-listing tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or parameter selection strategy.

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