list_runtimes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only restates the core action ('List agent runtimes') without detailing side effects, permissions, pagination, ordering, or any other behavioral traits. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 is front-loaded and contains no filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose while adding a useful clarification ('machines'). Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It identifies the scope and what is being listed, though it does not describe return values or default workspace behavior (the latter is covered by the schema).

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single optional parameter workspace_id, including its purpose and default behavior. The description does not add any parameter-specific detail, so it neither helps nor hurts beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('List') and resource ('agent runtimes (machines)') with clear scope ('in the workspace'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_runtime and get_runtime_usage by focusing on listing all runtimes, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage (call this to see the runtimes in a workspace) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, though the context is reasonably clear from the verb and resource.

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