get_run_history

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

Adds context beyond annotations: explains response includes actual_zone_runs and calendar_runs/skips, notes limitations (calendar events may be incomplete, observed telemetry is source of truth, limited to latest run per zone). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Very concise with clear structure: one-line purpose, usage guidance, response explanation, parameter list. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

Complete for a read-only history tool with output schema. Covers return value nature, limitations, defaults, and references sibling tool. No gaps.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, description fully explains all three parameters: device_id as 'Controller UUID', start and end with ISO format and default values (today - 7 days for start, tomorrow for end). Compensates for schema gap.

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 verb 'return' and resource 'watering history for a controller.' It distinguishes from sibling tool get_schedule_runs by specifying when to use that alternative for schedule-specific audit trails.

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 says it's the best first tool for questions like 'what ran today?', 'when did this controller water recently?', or 'did anything skip?'. Also directs to use get_schedule_runs for schedule-specific audits.

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