dsh_list_runs

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral traits: results are ordered newest first and are filtered to runs handed over via dsh-baton. It says nothing about pagination, truncation, the default limit's effect, or whether it is a read-only 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?

A single sentence with zero filler. Ordering and source filter are front-loaded alongside the verb and resource, so every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the essentials are present. However, with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still cannot learn what a 'run' record contains or how listing interacts with limits — minor but real gaps.

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?

Only one optional parameter (limit) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds no syntax, bounds, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (runs) with scope ('recent') and ordering ('newest first'), plus the qualifier that runs came through dsh-baton. This is clear enough to distinguish from dsh_list_sessions and dsh_list_workspaces, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative. An agent cannot tell from the text whether dsh_list_runs or dsh_list_sessions is the right entry point for its question; the dsh-baton qualifier hints at context but is not a selection rule.

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