taskscheduler_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. On top of that the description discloses useful behavior: results are ordered 'newest first', and that the action/command field only applies to script tasks. It does not mention pagination or rate behavior, but it clears the lower bar set by the annotations.

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, tightly written sentence with the core deliverable front-loaded ('Run history of one scheduled task, newest first') and a useful secondary clause about the action field. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and the tool's complexity is low with just two parameters. The description covers subject, ordering and content well; the only real gap is any hint about limiting result size, which is minor for a read-only history lookup.

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 only 50%: task_id is documented as coming 'from taskscheduler_tasks', but 'limit' (default 10, max 200) carries no description. The prose says nothing about limiting or paging, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap, and 'newest first' does not explain how to fetch older entries.

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: returns the run history of one scheduled task, with the fields returned named (start time, duration, exit result, action). It is clearly distinct from the sibling taskscheduler_tasks (which lists tasks), though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description says the history is for 'one scheduled task', so the agent can infer it needs a task_id from the task list. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the taskscheduler_tasks sibling, and no guidance on when to prefer taskscheduler_runs over logcenter_logs or cloudsync_logs.

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