tm_list_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the tool behavior: listing runs with filters, pagination with size cap at 100, and returns a paginated envelope. However, it does not disclose sorting order, behavior on empty results, or potential side effects (though likely none).

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 concise (around 15 lines) and well-structured with a header, example, and bullet-pointed filter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose and key use case.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the return format (pagination envelope) and covers all filters. It lacks detail on the contents of each run summary, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds detailed explanations for all 9 parameters, including allowed values for triggered_by, auto_verdict, format for timestamps, the reason for 'from_' underscore, and pagination defaults and cap. This is comprehensive beyond the schema.

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 'List past runs with optional filters' and provides a specific use case (CI-failure triage) with an example. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tm_get_run (single run) and tm_compare_runs (comparison) by focusing on listing with filters.

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 gives a concrete use case and explains that filters are AND-combined, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools. The example implicitly guides usage, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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