List automation/script traces

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

Annotations already establish this is a read-only, open-world call, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: retention limits (5 traces per item by default, none surviving a restart) and the meaning of the 'failed_condition' stop reason. It stops short of describing output shape or ordering behavior, but that is meaningful added value.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the returned fields, then two dense caveats (scoping and retention) that each earn their place. No filler, though the parenthetical about 'failed_condition' makes the first sentence slightly heavy.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches what a run record contains (timing, completion, stop reason) and warns about retention and restart loss, which is what an agent needs to interpret sparse results. A note on result ordering or the refusal behavior for instance_id would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 100%, so the schema already documents item, limit, domain, and instance_id thoroughly. The description only restates the 'omit item' default behavior, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the parameters already carry. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List recent runs of an automation or script') and enumerates the returned fields (when it ran, whether it finished, how it stopped). This clearly separates it from sibling ha_get_trace (single trace detail) and ha_list_automations (definitions, not runs).

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?

It gives one usage condition ('Omit item to list runs across everything in the domain'), which implies the filtered vs. unfiltered modes, but never routes the agent toward or away from alternatives such as ha_get_trace for full trace contents. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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