List a project's runs

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: pagination behavior and the notable fact that presigned s3_*_url download links are elided with a 6-hour capability lifetime. That return-shape caveat is something the agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then adds only three short supporting sentences; no filler. Minor cost is that pagination and status filtering are split across separate short sentences that could compress slightly.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be enumerated, and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description is nearly sufficient. The one extra detail it does provide, elided presigned URLs, meaningfully closes the remaining gap between what the schema shows and what a caller actually receives.

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%, with every parameter including the full status_filter value list documented inline, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only gestures at status filtering and pagination, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline.

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 and resource with precise scope: 'List all simulation runs across all scenarios in a project.' An agent can immediately distinguish this bulk-list operation from the singular get_run, get_run_status, and the unrelated list_projects/list_inputs siblings.

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?

Gives clear context for use (list a project's runs, optionally narrowed by status) but names no alternative tool or exclusion condition, e.g. it never says to prefer get_run when a single run ID is already known.

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