list_runs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states the action without disclosing return format, pagination, read-only guarantees, or whether the optional flowId filters results. 'List' implies non-mutating behavior, but important operational details are absent.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for the tool's needs. This is more brevity than informative 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 simple tool with one undocumented optional parameter and no output schema, the description is too minimal. An agent cannot tell what the response looks like, whether flowId filters or is required in some contexts, or how this relates to the sibling run management tools.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention flowId at all. The property name suggests an optional filter by flow, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 'List flow runs' uses a specific verb and resource, so an agent can infer the tool returns flow run records. It is not a tautology and differs from siblings like update_flow or cancel_run, though it does not explicitly distinguish from list_flows.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_flows, get_flow, or the other run-related siblings. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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