list_runs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but says nothing about read-only behaviour, ordering, result limits, pagination, or what a 'decision' looks like. Only the verb 'list' faintly implies a non-mutating read.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than true conciseness. Nothing is wasted, yet little is conveyed.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and no parameter docs, so the description is the only source of information about the return value and it does not describe it. An agent cannot know the result shape, ordering, or what 'decision' means before calling.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The one missed opportunity is stating that no filtering is possible, which would matter given the unbounded 'previous runs' scope.

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?

States a verb (list) and resource (runs) plus an extra field it returns (decision), which is more informative than the title alone. But 'runs' is undefined in a sibling set that also contains run_test, backtest, results and job_status, so an agent cannot confidently tell what a 'run' is or which tool surfaces them.

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?

No indication of when to call this instead of results, job_status or backtest, which are the obvious neighbours. The agent is left to guess whether this is a history view, a status poll, or a results summary.

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