get_project_runs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states a retrieval behavior ('Return'), which suggests a read-only operation, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or any assumptions about the project parameter.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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 output schema likely covers return-value structure, and the basic purpose is stated. However, the description is thin: it omits pagination semantics, gives no usage guidance, and relies heavily on the tool name and parameter defaults to convey context.

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%, and the tool description only clarifies the 'project' parameter by saying 'for a project.' It adds no meaning for 'limit' or 'offset', leaving their semantics to inference from the parameter names and defaults.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and names the resource 'runs and recorded conclusions' scoped to a project. It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like list_jobs or list_ready_results.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_job, list_jobs, or list_ready_results. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions mentioned.

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