list_autopilot_runs

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds crucial context beyond annotations: 'costs no credits', 'starts nothing', 'Requires an API key', and 'Returns runs newest first with paging' — all useful behavioral details for an agent.

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 concise, well-paragraphed, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage guidance, alternatives, behavior, auth, and ordering. No fluff.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what is returned (status and result summaries), ordering (newest first), pagination, auth requirement, and credit cost. For a simple list tool with strong annotations, this is fully complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 100%, with both limit and offset already described. The description adds minor context like 'newest first' and 'paging', but the parameters are fully understandable from the schema alone, so the description provides no significant extra meaning.

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 clearly states the tool lists past and running autopilot runs with their status and result summaries. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing get_autopilot_status for single-run detail and start_autopilot for launching, making its scope unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: to review past runs and to check for an in-flight run before starting a second one. Also names get_autopilot_status as the alternative for detailed run info, giving clear context vs. alternatives.

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