Runn: list workstreams

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List workstreams,' omitting critical behaviors like pagination (limit, cursor), fetchAll support, response shape, or whether this is a read-only operation. The schema's parameter descriptions cover some mechanics, but the description itself adds no behavioral detail.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, containing no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with pagination options, so it misses an opportunity to pack useful context while remaining concise.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and usage context. It does not mention what the response contains, pagination behavior, or the relationship to other workstream tools. Although the schema documents all parameters, the description is too thin for an agent to fully understand invocation outcomes.

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 the baseline is 3 even with no parameter info in the description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for limit, cursor, and fetchAll, so it neither helps nor hurts.

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 'List workstreams.' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling list tools by naming 'workstreams' as the target resource, though it lacks any scope details (e.g., 'all' or 'by project').

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., runn_create_workstream, runn_list_phases). It also does not mention prerequisites or context like whether it lists all workstreams in a workspace or for a specific project.

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