Get Automation Runs

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

With readOnlyHint=true already annotation, the description adds valuable context by explaining the two modes and the detail level: step-by-step execution status, outputs, and errors. It also lists run and step statuses, which goes beyond the schema and annotations. However, it does not address rate limits or pagination defaults.

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 well-structured with bold headers, bullet points, and distinct sections for purpose, modes, when to use, and statuses. It is efficient, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool with two modes and no output schema, the description explains both modes and what is returned (run info, step-by-step status, outputs, errors), and lists statuses. It lacks explicit mention of default pagination behavior, but the schema covers cursor parameters, making it nearly complete.

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%, with each parameter already well-described (e.g., status is 'for list mode only', runId says 'If omitted, lists all runs'). The description reinforces these mode distinctions but does not add substantive meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: 'List runs for an automation, or get details of a specific run.' It uses specific verbs and a distinct resource, and explicitly differentiates the two modes, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get-automation.

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 'When to use' section provides concrete scenarios such as checking if an automation is working or debugging a failed run, and explicitly answers common user questions like 'why did this automation fail?'. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, so it lacks exclusionary guidance.

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