list_trigger_runs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default time range (last 7 days), the filtering options (trigger_name, status), and hints at the use case (spotting failures). However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, rate limits, or any side-effect profile (though 'List' implies read-only). Given the read-only nature and the output schema, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences with high information density. The purpose is front-loaded, and each clause earns its place by explaining a distinct aspect (default range, trigger_name behavior, status filter). No redundancy or filler.

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 list operation with an output schema and six parameters, the description covers the essential usage patterns: default time range, filtering by trigger and status. It does not mention time-format requirements or pagination, but these are typical for list tools and the output schema may provide details. Overall, an agent can call this correctly based on the description alone.

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 explains the semantics of trigger_name (omit vs. narrow), status (filter), and implies start_time/end_time via the default range. Resource_group and factory_name are not elaborated, but they are standard identifiers and obvious from tool context. The description adds meaningful detail to the key filtering parameters, which is valuable.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('trigger firing history'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_triggers (which lists definitions) and get_trigger_status (current status). It explicitly frames the tool as history-of-runs, so an agent can immediately identify when this is the right choice.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to inspect firing history, especially to spot errored runs) and gives operational guidance: omit trigger_name for all triggers, filter by status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for selection among siblings.

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