get_agent_runs

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the basic retrieval behavior but omits important details such as ordering (e.g., most recent first), pagination, or whether results are limited to 'recent' only. The default limit of 10 implies recency but is not explicit.

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 exceptionally concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a clear 'Args' bullet list. Every element is necessary, no fluff. Structure is front-loaded with the main action.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. The three optional parameters are well documented. The tool is simple, and the description covers retrieval intent and parameter semantics, making it largely complete for its complexity level.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial meaning: it explains the default for 'limit', the expected format for 'since' (ISO date/datetime string), and gives examples for 'agent_slug'. This goes beyond the raw schema and aids correct usage.

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 retrieves agent run history from the database. The verb 'Retrieve' and noun 'agent run history' make the purpose specific. It is implicitly distinguished from the sibling 'log_agent_run' (which writes), but explicit differentiation could improve clarity.

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 'get_agent_context' or 'log_agent_run'. The description only lists parameters without contextual usage advice, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.

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