browser_run_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions outputs (status, pass/fail counts, timings) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires any prerequisites, or any side effects. The minimal description leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is concise, though at the expense of missing parameter and behavioral details, earning a 4 rather than 5.

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 tool has 3 parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter semantics, return value structure, or how the tool behaves with different parameter values. Information is missing for an informed invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds no details about the parameters beyond the schema; for example, it does not clarify what 'origin' means or that 'limit' controls the number of runs returned. The phrase 'Last N runs' only indirectly relates to the limit parameter.

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 states it retrieves 'Last N runs of a workflow' with details on status, counts, and timings. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_workflow_run (execution) and browser_workflow_get (definition retrieval).

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 when workflow run history is needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It does not differentiate from similar tools like browser_workflow_run or browser_workflow_list.

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