Get Automation Runs

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

Discloses two modes, return details (step status, outputs, errors), and run statuses. No annotations exist, so description carries burden. Could explicitly state read-only nature, but implied.

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 headings and bullet points. No unnecessary sentences; every part adds value.

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 exists, but description explains return values (runs list or detailed run info). Could be slightly more specific about format, but sufficient.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds meaning: explains modes based on runId, status filter only for list mode, and automationId accepts URLs.

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 two modes: listing runs or getting details of a specific run. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get-automation by focusing on runs.

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?

Explicitly provides scenarios for use, such as checking if an automation is working or debugging a failure. Could mention when not to use (e.g., use get-automation for automation metadata), but sufficient.

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