list_run_history

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

With no annotations, the description discloses pagination behavior (nextLink, skipToken) and SKU requirement. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but that is implied. Missing details on rate limits or authorization, but acceptable for a list tool.

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 three sentences, covering purpose, filtering, alternatives, next steps, and pagination. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers return of nextLink for pagination and directs to downstream tools for details. This is 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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining pagination (skipToken from nextLink) and reinforcing SKU requirement. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it gets run history for a workflow with optional filtering. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'search_runs' by noting that search_runs is for easier filtering. It also mentions pagination.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use search_runs for easier filtering by status/date. After finding a run, use get_run_details and get_run_actions to debug.' It also specifies the requirement of workflowName for Standard SKU.

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