Get Automation Runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. It adds context about paging and status filtering. However, it does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, or result ordering. With annotations covering the core behaviors, the description adds moderate value.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence of 17 words. It front-loads the main purpose and appends key features (paging, status filter). No unnecessary words. Perfectly concise for the information conveyed.

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 the tool has 4 parameters (all well-documented in schema), an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is sufficient to understand what the tool does. It covers the essential aspects: retrieving executions with filtering and pagination. Minor missing details like result ordering are not critical for a simple list tool. Scores 4 due to slight lack of depth (e.g., no mention of chronological order or default pagination).

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%; every parameter has a description in the input schema. The description mentions paging and status filter, which aligns with the schema, but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 retrieves run history (executions) for an automation, with paging and optional status filter. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_automations or list_automation_actions, though the resource is distinct.

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 description implies usage for retrieving run history, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_automations (which lists automations) or run_automations. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

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