List durable Ennodia run history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: only *terminal* runs are persisted, the receipts live under a local history directory, and they survive a restart. It omits ordering, retention bounds, and pagination behavior, which the schema only partly supplies.

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, zero filler, with the scoping statement front-loaded and the usage condition following. Nothing needs trimming or reordering.

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, so the description carries the burden of saying what comes back, and it does indicate final answers plus Judge disagreement analysis. Minor gaps remain around ordering and retention, but for a one-optional-parameter read tool it is sufficient to call correctly.

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% and the single `limit` parameter is already well documented (newest first, max 500, exclusiveMinimum 0). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read terminal run receipts persisted under the local Ennodia history directory"), which is concrete and distinct from a live-run tool. It does not name any sibling such as ennodia_get_run to draw the boundary explicitly, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

"Use after a restart to inspect previous final answers and Judge disagreement analysis" gives a clear triggering condition and intent. It offers no exclusions or named alternative (e.g., when to prefer ennodia_get_run for an in-flight run), which keeps it out of the top band.

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