Run history of an automation, newest first

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds something genuinely useful beyond that — the result ordering (newest first) and the endpoint path — but says nothing about pagination behavior, how many runs exist, or how failures appear in the history.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the ordering constraint and endpoint come immediately. It is efficient but so terse that the brevity shades into under-specification rather than economy.

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?

There is no output schema and zero schema description coverage, so the definition should carry more weight than it does. An agent gets no sense of what a run record contains, whether results are paginated or capped, or how to read a failed run, which leaves real gaps for a history-listing tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implies that {id} identifies the automation whose runs are listed (via the path template) but adds no meaning for the 'limit' parameter — no default, no tie to pagination, no statement that it caps the number of runs returned.

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 names a specific resource ('run history of an automation') and adds ordering ('newest first') plus the underlying endpoint GET /v1/rules/{id}/runs, so an agent can tell this is a read of past executions rather than triggering a run. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as rules_run or rules_get, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this to inspect past executions versus rules_get for the rule definition or rules_run to trigger one. The agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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