paperclip_list_routine_runs

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, consistent with listing historical runs. Description adds pagination envelope details, error handling (401, 404), and return structure. Contradiction: false.

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?

Concise, well-structured with Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling sections. No wasted words, all sentences add value.

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, but description explains pagination envelope and item fields. Also covers error handling. Complete for a list 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 coverage is 100%, so description adds minimal extra value beyond parameter descriptions. It clarifies routineId format and response_format options, but baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists historical runs for a routine, ordered most-recent first. It distinguishes from siblings like paperclip_list_routines (lists routines) and paperclip_get_run_log (likely retrieves a single run log).

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?

Explicit use-case example: 'auditing whether a scheduled routine has been firing and completing successfully'. Explicit don't-use case: 'need routines triggers or settings — use paperclip_get_routine instead'. Excellent guidance.

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