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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it requires a login token, runs are private to the runner, and it returns makespan vs planned duration. It doesn't describe pagination or exact response shape, but with no output schema and these annotations, the description carries a reasonable burden and mostly fulfills it.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the resource and output, the second explains when records are created, the third covers auth and privacy. Front-loaded with the core action and scope. No redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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 read-only list tool with 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the trigger for record creation, the privacy model, and the comparison value. The only minor gap is not describing the response format (e.g., fields returned per run), but the description does mention 'when it ran, how it ended, and the actual makespan against the planned one', which gives a good sense of the output.

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 both parameters (token and program_id). The description adds context that program_id refers to a saved program and that token comes from the login tool, but this largely mirrors the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't add significant new parameter-level meaning.

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'), a specific resource ('recorded executions of one saved program'), and a clear scope ('one saved program', 'newest first'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_public_runs by emphasizing privacy and the specific program context. The title and description align well.

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 clearly explains when runs are recorded ('whenever the live timeline is played or the terminal runner is used') and why they matter ('makes the planned durations checkable against reality'). It implies this tool is for private runs, contrasting with list_public_runs, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling or say 'use list_public_runs for public runs'. This is clear context but lacks an explicit exclusion.

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