get_run_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose behavior such as result ordering, whether the history is paginated, what constitutes 'recent', or any limitations. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the function name.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the use case adds practical value without bloat.

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?

Given an output schema exists and the tool is a simple read operation, the description covers the core purpose and a specific use case. However, it lacks parameter semantics and behavioral details like ordering or pagination, leaving gaps for a complete understanding. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, and the description does not mention the 'limit' or 'project_id' parameters. The schema provides types and default, but the description adds no semantic meaning, leaving the agent to infer that 'limit' controls the number of results and 'project_id' identifies the project. This is insufficient for low coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'recent run history' and identifies the scope 'for a project'. It clearly indicates a read operation distinct from sibling tools like run_project or cancel_run, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The added purpose 'spotting patterns in recurring failures' reinforces its analytical intent.

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 sentence 'Useful for spotting patterns in recurring failures' provides a clear context for when to use the tool, but it lacks explicit exclusions or references to alternative tools such as get_run_status. This is clear context without exclusions, placing it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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