Get Tracker autoaction run

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot express: these logs exist only for autoactions that auto-update issues, implying the result can legitimately be empty for other autoactions.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The output content is front-loaded, and the operational prerequisites (run_id source, which autoactions qualify) follow immediately.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating what is returned (per-issue results and status). With 3/3 required params documented in the schema, the definition is nearly self-sufficient; only result volume/pagination behavior is unaddressed.

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 queue_id, action_id and run_id are already documented. The description only adds a provenance pointer for run_id ('from autoactions_logs_list'), which is helpful but marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (per-issue outcomes of one autoaction run) and a specific verb (get), and clarifies the granularity ('each issue touched and its result status'). It is clearly distinguishable from its closest sibling, tracker_autoactions_logs_list, which is the enumeration endpoint.

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?

Gives concrete routing guidance: obtain run_id from autoactions_logs_list, and states a real precondition — only auto-update autoactions produce these detail logs. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it (e.g. for run-level summaries), but the context is clear enough to select correctly.

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