List Playbook Runs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'List execution history' without details on behavior: no mention of read-only nature, ordering, pagination, or performance. The description is too vague to disclose important behavioral traits.

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 concise sentence with clear front-loading. No wasted words. Perfectly appropriate length for the information conveyed.

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 low complexity, the description omits crucial context: no mention of return format, ordering, or that this is a read operation. With no output schema, the description should be more informative. It is incomplete for tool selection.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description merely restates that filtering is optional, adding no new meaning beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions. Thus, it stays at baseline.

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 'List playbook execution history', which is a specific verb ('list') and resource ('playbook execution history'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_playbook_run' (single run) and 'list_playbooks' (playbooks), but does not explicitly name alternatives, so it misses the 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 on when to use or not use this tool vs. alternatives like get_playbook_run. There is no mention of prerequisites or context. The phrase 'Optionally filter by playbook or customer' hints at use cases but does not provide explicit usage rules.

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