List runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the 'Read-only' prefix is largely redundant. The description's only added behavioral fact is that results are ordered newest first, which is genuinely useful context not present in the annotations or schema, but defaults for limit and any pagination behavior are undisclosed.

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 short fragments, front-loaded with the safety profile followed by scope and ordering, with zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 three-parameter list tool with no output schema, an agent still lacks the default and maximum for limit, the accepted status values (only in the schema property, not the description), and whether results are paginated or truncated. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the operational details an agent needs to call this correctly are missing.

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 coverage is only 67%: project and status carry descriptions, but limit has none in either schema or description, and its default value is never stated. The description adds nothing about which parameters exist or how to combine them (e.g. that status accepts a comma-separated list and limit caps at 50), so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names the resource (runs) and scopes it to a single project, with ordering ('newest first'), so the agent can tell it is a listing tool rather than a single-record fetcher like get_run. However, it never states the verb explicitly and gives no contrast against siblings such as get_run_results or get_run_report, leaving differentiation to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no named alternative. The phrase 'recent runs' hints at a browsing use case, but nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over list_findings, get_run, or wait_for_run. No explicit exclusion of cases where filtering by status or a single run is more appropriate.

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