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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the returned fields and implies pagination via cursor/pageSize, but it does not state whether results are ordered, whether agentKey is an exact match or partial, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is accurate but not deeply transparent about behavior.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main action and resource, then lists the key returned fields. It is concise and structured well, though it could be slightly more explicit about pagination behavior.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and returned fields, but it lacks details on ordering, default behavior, and how to use the cursor. It is adequate for basic invocation but leaves some gaps for an agent needing to paginate or filter effectively.

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 three parameters. The description adds context about what fields are returned but does not add meaning beyond the schema for the parameters themselves. 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('project-managed agent runs') and enumerates the fields returned (status, timing, credit consumption, token usage, agent identity). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling devtune_get_agent_run, which likely 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 a listing use case and the parameters (cursor, agentKey, pageSize) suggest pagination and filtering, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus devtune_get_agent_run or other list tools. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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