List Tracker autoaction runs

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 genuine value beyond that by describing the shape of a record (one per launch, with hit/success/failure counts), which helps the agent interpret results; it does not mention pagination or volume limits.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence only adds the id hand-off relationship, which earns its place.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so at the record level (run per launch with hit/success/failure counts). It omits pagination/ordering behavior and how queue_id and action_id scope the listing, leaving a small gap.

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% (queue_id documents case-sensitive key vs numeric id; action_id documents numeric identifier), so both parameters are already fully explained. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (run summaries for an autoaction, one record per launch) and disambiguates from the closely-named sibling tracker_autoactions_logs_get by naming it explicitly. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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?

The description establishes the drill-down workflow: use this to list runs, then pass a record's id to autoactions_logs_get for per-issue outcomes. That is clear context for choosing between the two log tools, though it stops short of explicit when-not/exclusion language.

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