wes_list_runs

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals pagination mechanisms (page_size, page_token) and scoping (caller permissions). However, it does not address rate limits, default ordering, or behavior under error conditions, leaving gaps for a read-heavy tool.

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 succinct (three sentences plus Args list) and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information or padding.

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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the needed context: what it lists, pagination, and permission scope. It is complete given the tool's complexity.

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 add meaning. It provides clear explanations for both parameters: 'Number of runs to return per page' and 'Token for retrieving the next page of results.' This adds value beyond the schema titles alone, compensating well for the lack of schema docs.

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 identifies the action (list), resource (workflow runs), and source (WES service). It distinguishes from siblings like list_runs or search_runs by explicitly referencing WES, making it easy for an AI agent to select the correct tool.

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 states that it returns a paginated list of runs the caller has permission to see, which implies basic usage. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_runs or search_runs, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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