runmeter_list

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: newest-first ordering, filter semantics (including status allowed values 'ok'/'error' and tag match behavior), relative time windows for 'since', and the return of total count to signal pagination needs. This goes beyond basic safety hints and enriches the agent's understanding of what to expect.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line summary sentence, a concise filter list with explanations, and a final sentence on pagination and return count. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague wording.

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 list tool with 7 optional parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations, this description is complete. It covers purpose, ordering, all filter options with semantics, pagination behavior, and the return shape (limited rows plus total count). No critical gaps are evident.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explicitly listing all seven parameters (tag, agent, limit, model, since, offset, status) and explaining their semantics. It clarifies status allowed values, since format (ISO or relative like '24h'/'7d'), tag matching, and pagination use of limit/offset. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema field names.

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 the tool's function: 'List runs newest-first with optional filters.' This uses a specific verb ('list') plus resource ('runs') and adds ordering and filtering scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like runmeter_get (single run fetch), runmeter_summary (aggregates), runmeter_record (create), and runmeter_delete (delete) by emphasizing the paginated list behavior with filters.

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 provides clear usage context: it explains the available filters and how to use limit/offset for pagination, including how to know when to page further via the total count. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool (e.g., for a single run use runmeter_get). This matches 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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