skill.testRuns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the sort order (latest first) but says nothing about pagination, the meaning of the limit default, whether the result is truncated, or required permissions for a tool that clearly reads another skill's run history.

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 tight sentence with the key scope and ordering front-loaded. No wasted words, though it is arguably too brief given the undocumented parameters.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema this is minimally viable, but with zero annotation and schema-description coverage the description leaves the limit parameter and return shape unexplained.

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%, so the description must compensate but does not. It implies skill_id via 'for a skill' but never explains limit, its default of 20, or any bounds.

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 (recent test runs for a skill) plus the ordering (latest first). It is understandable on its own, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like skill.testCases, skill.benchmark, or skill.reliability.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools are mentioned. The agent must infer that this is the read-only way to view past runs versus skill.test which executes them.

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