list_automation_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds useful behavioral details: the order (newest first), the fields included, and that failed runs carry the target verb's rejection code verbatim. This is beyond the structured data and helps the agent understand output semantics.

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 sentences long, with no fluff. The key information is front-loaded: what the tool returns and its ordering. It is efficient and well-structured.

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?

The description is adequate for a list tool, but lacks details about the return format (e.g., how many runs per page, whether it's an array), how the parameters affect results, and when to prefer this over get_automation_run. Since there is no output schema, more context would help the agent know what to expect.

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?

The input schema has 4 parameters (workspaceId required, limit, ruleId, status) but the description gives no explanation of their meaning or usage. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate, but it doesn't mention any parameters at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but for limit and status, the expected values or formats are not hinted at.

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 what the tool does: it lists the run log for automations, newest first, and details what each entry contains (what fired, when, why, what was sent, and what came back). This distinguishes it from the sibling get_automation_run, which presumably retrieves a single run.

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 this is for viewing a log, but it does not explicitly state when to use this list tool versus get_automation_run. It also doesn't mention filtering options or when to use the ruleId/status parameters. The usage context is clear enough for a log listing, but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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