get_run_history_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Return', implying a read operation, but does not disclose ordering, pagination, limit semantics, failure behavior, or response format. The minimal phrase 'recent' adds some context but is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the verb and immediately specifies the resource and optional filter, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple history-retrieval tool, the description covers the core purpose and main parameters. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and no mention of 'limit' behavior or return format, it is only minimally complete. It would benefit from noting ordering or how to control the number of results.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that region is optional and links project/region to the primary parameters, but does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all, nor provide formats or constraints. The description partially compensates but leaves a significant gap.

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 action ('Return') and specific resource ('recent unit, integration, and mutation runs') plus scope ('for a project and optional region'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_unit_tests_tool or run_integration_tests_tool, which execute runs rather than retrieve history.

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 implies usage for viewing past test runs, and the optional region parameter adds context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools or mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage guidance is only contextual, not direct.

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