list_runs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'List' implying a read-only operation, but does not discuss what 'recent' means, whether results are ordered, if it shows incomplete runs, or any potential side effects. It lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second providing a practical use case. It is front-loaded, no redundant or filler content, and every sentence adds value.

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 listing tool with an output schema (present but not visible), the description is adequate but not complete. It does not clarify ordering, time frame for 'recent', or behavior of 'limit'. These gaps could lead to incorrect assumptions by the agent.

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 description does not mention parameters at all. The input schema covers repo_root with a description and limit with a default, but 50% of parameters lack schema descriptions. The main text adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, failing to explain how 'limit' works or constraints like the path requirement.

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 'List recent Dobby runs for a repo,' which conveys a specific action on a specific resource. It also adds context about recovering task ids after timeout, which helps understand its utility. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_run' or 'wait_run', though the plural 'runs' implies listing multiple.

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 gives a concrete use case: 'recovering task ids and results after a caller-side timeout.' This is helpful for when to use. However, it does not mention exclusion criteria, such as not using this tool to get a single run (use 'get_run' instead) or to monitor ongoing runs (use 'wait_run'). No guidance on alternatives.

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