Get run history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the exclusion rule ('a ping with neither ci_meta nor a rid is excluded'), the distinction between duration_ms and CI's duration_s, and the meaning of untrusted_fields. This is well past the lowered bar annotations set.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the auth requirement and scope come first, then the returned shape. It is long, but nearly every clause carries non-obvious information (field lists, exclusions, duration semantics), so little is wasted.

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 describing return values and does so thoroughly — base fields, CI-only fields, the exclusion rule, and untrusted_fields. An agent has what it needs to call and interpret this 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% with only id and limit, both documented in the schema (monitor UUID; default 20, max 100). The description adds no syntax or format detail for either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies; its field-level detail describes returns, not inputs.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Gets a monitor's run history') and immediately bounds the scope ('from pings, CI and agent runs alike'), explicitly excluding trace-only runs and pointing to list_runs. An agent can distinguish this from get_run and list_runs without opening any 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?

States the prerequisite ('Requires the read scope or higher') and names the alternative for a related case ('trace-only runs are in list_runs'), plus the 'no filters' constraint. It stops short of a full when-to-use-this-vs-that rule for the common case, but the routing context is clear.

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