atlas_list_runs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adds substantial behavioral context: zero cost, P4, stable pagination, the full status enumeration, dynamic determination of 'interrupted' via ledger and run lock, and the short-lived 'starting' window excluded from this list. It does not cover authentication or rate limits, but the disclosure is rich for a read-only list operation.

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 front-loaded with purpose and ordering, then adds status details and pagination rules. Every sentence serves a purpose for a tool with zero annotations, but some status enumeration could be relegated to the output schema since one exists.

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?

An output schema exists, so return fields needn't be explained, yet the description still lists key fields. It covers pagination, sorting, statuses, and the subtle 'starting' exclusion. Gaps remain around the 'limit' parameter and authentication context, but overall it is fairly complete for a list tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'cursor' (pass the previous page's next_cursor), but completely omits the 'limit' parameter—its default (20 in schema) and any bounds or semantics. Half the parameters remain undocumented.

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?

State a clear verb+resource: '列出运行' (list runs), with sorting by run_id descending and stable pagination. It enumerates returned fields (run_id/graph/status/nodes_done/started), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like atlas_get_run.

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 pagination mechanics ('cursor 传上一页返回的 next_cursor 续页') but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., atlas_get_run for a single run, or atlas_list_workflows for workflows). No when-not conditions are stated. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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