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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals only that names are returned and what a run is; it says nothing about ordering, whether results are scoped to a user/workspace, whether inactive or partially processed runs appear, or any access requirements.

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?

It is very short with no filler, and the clarifying parenthetical earns its place. However, a bare noun fragment front-loads a return value rather than the action, leaving the reader to reconstruct the verb.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the parenthetical covers the domain term. What remains missing for a zero-parameter listing tool is the most basic fact: that it lists, and under what scope.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for.

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 phrase "Names of the sample runs" identifies the resource (sample runs) and hints at the return shape (names), and the parenthetical usefully defines a run as a video already turned into a protocol. But it is a noun fragment with no verb, so it never states the operation, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling get_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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. With get_run in the sibling list, an agent must infer that list_runs enumerates while get_run fetches one, and nothing in the description confirms or excludes any condition or alternative.

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