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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read-only action ('List') but does not mention pagination, ordering, auth requirements, or any side effects. For a list operation, it is reasonable to assume safety, but the description fails to explicitly confirm that, leaving the agent to infer 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose without any fluff. It efficiently communicates the essential action and scope, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. There is no redundant information or unnecessary detail.

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 the simplicity of a list operation and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It mentions the key scope ('in this org') and the entity type, which is enough for basic use. However, it could briefly note that results are paginated via limit/offset to fully prepare the agent, but this is a minor gap.

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 description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Two of the four parameters (work_id and cursor_agent_id) have schema descriptions, while limit and offset are self-explanatory with defaults and bounds. With 50% schema coverage, the description could have clarified usage, but it does not, leaving the agent to rely solely on schema hints.

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 a specific verb ('List') and a well-defined resource ('TeamShared Cloud Agent runs in this org'). It differentiates from sibling list tools like process_run_list and work_list by naming the exact entity type. The scope 'in this org' adds precision, leaving no ambiguity about what is being listed.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and description make it obvious this is for listing agent runs, it does not mention exclusions or point to other tools for different list scenarios. Usage is implied rather than stated, which is acceptable but not proactive.

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