Get Automation Runs

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds mode behaviors, pagination details, scope constraints, and known states (success, failure, exhausted). Does not cover auth or rate limits, but that's acceptable given 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?

Well-structured with clear sections (modes, scope, known states). Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Concise but information-dense.

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?

No output schema, but description adequately explains return values: paginated run feed with state/duration/error for history, block steps and tool calls for detail. Covers all required and optional parameters.

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 already has 100% description coverage. The description adds valuable context on pagination (nextPageOffset = previous offset + returned count) and default behavior (includeToolEvents defaults true). Enhances understanding beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states it reads automation/workflow run history, with two distinct modes (history and detail) that differentiate the tool from siblings. The verb 'read' and resource 'automation/workflow run history' are specific.

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?

Provides clear guidance on mode selection, filtering, pagination (offset-only), and scope (boardId vs accountWide). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools like get_board_activity or get_updates.

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