list_runs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does add meaningful behavioral detail: run ids are deterministically derived from source bytes and the authority in force, and re-closing identical inputs under an unchanged policy reuses the id instead of duplicating the record. However, it does not disclose whether closing is irreversible, what side effects occur, or what the output represents.

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 short and free of filler, and the second sentence is informative. However, the first sentence is grammatically awkward ('Closes already recorded, by run id') and structurally front-loads an unclear claim. It is concise but not cleanly structured enough to earn a higher score.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description still fails to state what list_runs actually returns or how it should be invoked. The mismatch between the tool name and the described behavior leaves a critical gap: the agent cannot know whether this tool lists runs, closes runs, or does something else. It also provides no context relative to sibling tools.

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 zero properties, yet the description repeatedly refers to 'run id' and 'identical inputs', implying parameters that do not exist. This confuses invocation rather than clarifying it. The description adds conceptual detail about id derivation, but no usable guidance on what arguments to provide or how to supply them.

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?

Despite using a specific verb ('Closes') and resource ('already recorded'), the description directly contradicts the tool name 'list_runs' and makes no mention of listing. This is misleading: an agent selecting by name would expect a listing behavior, and the description appears to describe a closing operation (likely belonging to the sibling 'run_close').

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 suggests using the tool 'to close already recorded' items, but gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like run_close or get_close. It also fails to explain any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions. The only implicit context is that it operates on already-recorded runs by run id.

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