list_runs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses useful behavior: results are 'newest first' and include 'state,' which implies a read-only listing operation. It does not mention pagination, authorization, or any further behavioral constraints, but for a simple list tool the disclosed ordering and payload content add real value.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes key details without filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it easy to parse.

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 one-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential parts: resource, ordering, and result content. The main gap is that limit semantics are neither described nor compensated for to the schema, but this is a minor omission given the simplicity of the operation.

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?

There is only one parameter, limit, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain how limit behaves, such as whether it caps the maximum number of returned runs or what the default implies. The default value of 10 and the parameter name provide some meaning, but the description does not compensate for the missing parameter schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the most recent release runs, newest first, with their state.' This clearly communicates the core purpose and includes ordering and output scope. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings such as get_run or list_processes, so differentiation must be inferred from names rather than stated.

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 usage context is implied: an agent would use this tool to see recent release runs and their states. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor any mention of alternatives like get_run for a single run, so the guidance is present only at a minimal level.

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