Get Ticket Runs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data is 'append-only' and 'history', which implies immutability and read-only nature, but it does not mention that this is a read operation (no side effects) or any rate limits. The term 'append-only' is useful but could be reinforced by explicitly saying it does not modify state.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is concise and avoids fluff, but it could be slightly expanded with usage guidance without losing conciseness.

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 tool is simple with one required parameter and an output schema that likely describes the run history structure. The description captures the essential purpose. It lacks explicit read-only disclosure, but with an output schema present, the return value is likely self-explanatory. Given the simplicity, this is nearly complete.

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% for a single parameter 'ticketId'. The description does not explain the parameter beyond the schema's type and exclusiveMinimum. It is obvious that ticketId identifies the ticket, but the description could add value by specifying expected format (e.g., integer ID from kanban_find_ticket) or clarifying that it refers to the ticket whose runs are being fetched.

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 the tool fetches run history for a ticket, including events and artifacts. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like kanban_get_ticket or kanban_get_board by specifying 'run history' and 'append-only'. However, it could be more specific about what a 'run' is (e.g., CI/CD pipeline run) and how it differs from related tools.

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 when to use it (when you need run history for a ticket) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. With many sibling tools, this could be improved by naming a sibling like 'kanban_get_ticket' for basic ticket details. The phrase 'append-only' gives some context, but no exclusions are provided.

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