rundeck_get_job_executions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states 'List execution history', indicating a read operation, but fails to disclose important behaviors such as pagination (though schema shows max and offset), the scope of history (all or filtered by status), or any potential performance implications. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentence of 8 words, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and contains no unnecessary information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description is minimal and does not explain return values (no output schema), pagination details beyond parameter names, or error scenarios. For a listing tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what the agent can expect from the response.

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%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., id is the job UUID, status filter, max/offset for pagination). According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high.

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 'List execution history for a specific job' is concise, uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('execution history'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rundeck_get_execution (single execution) and rundeck_list_executions (broader listing) by specifying 'for a specific job'.

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 that the tool is for retrieving execution history of a job, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. Given sibling tools like rundeck_get_execution and rundeck_list_executions, more guidance would be beneficial.

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