List runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds ordering (newest first) and the semantic content of a run plus its relationship to events, which is genuinely useful context beyond the structured fields.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and ordering before the definition and follow-up pointer. No filler; every clause conveys information.

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 values need not be explained, and the description covers the resource, its contents, and ordering. It is essentially complete for a list tool, with only minor gaps such as pagination behavior, which the schema's before/limit descriptions already address.

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 all four parameters (q, limit, before, machine) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb+resource ('runs behind the account's events') and defines the domain term 'run' precisely as one invocation of one monitored program with its command line and event counts. This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_events and event_counts.

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 usage path: take a run_uid from here and pass it to search_events to scope events to that run. It lacks an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives statement (e.g., versus list_activity), but the follow-up guidance makes the intent clear.

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