list_runs

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses ordering (newest first), archive behavior, and lack of workflow filter. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or read-only nature, which would be helpful for an agent to understand side effects.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value and is appropriately scoped.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers key aspects (ordering, archive, alternative tool). It does not mention return format or pagination details, but the schema already handles parameter specifics. Slightly incomplete regarding overall behavior for a list endpoint.

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 coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. Description adds value by explaining the default ordering (newest first) and the default archive exclusion behavior (includeArchived defaults to false). This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists workflow runs across the tenant, newest first. Distinguishes from the sibling list_workflow_runs by explicitly noting that this route has no workflow filter.

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?

Provides clear guidance: use list_workflow_runs instead when listing runs of one workflow. Implicitly suggests this tool is for tenant-wide listing. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the sibling reference.

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