List Experiment Runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: it discloses a required authorization grant, and that filters and limit affect only presentation while every retained record is still validated. This is behavioral context an agent cannot infer from the annotations alone.

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?

Three dense sentences that front-load the operation and scope before moving to prerequisites and follow-ups; each sentence carries distinct information. It is compact, though the terminology is jargon-heavy and some clauses pack multiple ideas together.

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?

With a full input schema and an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description correctly covers purpose, authorization prerequisite, filter semantics, and next-step routing. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly, though ordering or pagination behavior of the bounded history is not addressed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description's framing that filters/limit do not reduce validation largely restates the schema's own limit and status notes. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds little parameter semantics beyond the structured fields.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List verified local experiment Runs') and enumerates the capture types it covers (CLI, SDK, Jupyter) with their recorded parameters and metrics. It is clearly separable from apizr_experiment_show and apizr_experiment_diff, which it explicitly routes the agent to for follow-up.

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?

It names the prerequisite ('explicit history.read operator grant for the configured project's store') and points to the correct successors ('use show or diff with returned Run identities'), and clarifies what the tool does not do (no execution, exposure, or store mutation). It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the routing guidance is concrete.

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