List monitor runs

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

The annotations already cover safety, idempotency, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: run history is returned newest first, and legacy enrichment monitors return a `legacy` marker.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose. It wastes a little space by repeating the title as the opening line and includes a raw API endpoint link, but otherwise every part is useful.

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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description covers ordering, filtering support, pagination parameters, and the legacy case. It could say more about pagination metadata or response shape, but is complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description mentions `status`, `page`, and `per_page`, but adds little semantic meaning beyond what the schema fields and enum already provide.

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 and resource: listing a monitor's run history, ordered newest first. It distinguishes this from fetching a specific run's data, though it points to a raw API endpoint rather than naming the sibling tool that performs that retrieval.

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?

It implies this tool is for listing a monitor's run history and directs specific-run retrieval elsewhere. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as get_run, get_run_result, list_runs, or runs_summary, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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