ps_list_runs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not state ordering, what 'recent' means (time window? top-N?), pagination behavior, or that results are capped by the limit parameter's default of 20. It is plausibly a read-only list, but that is inferred, not stated.

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 short sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, which is structurally good. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely concise, so it earns only a middle score.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be explained. But with zero annotations and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent without the scoping, ordering, and limit semantics needed to call this listing tool 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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'limit' parameter, and the description never mentions it, its default of 20, or the maximum. The parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, but the description does nothing to 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 has a verb ('List') and a resource ('runs'), plus a vague secondary object ('stage states'), so the general purpose is discernible. However, it gives no basis for choosing it over close siblings such as ps_get_run_meta, ps_get_run_stage, or ps_get_run_summary, and 'recent' and 'stage states' are undefined.

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 conditions, and no mention of alternative tools like ps_get_run_stage or ps_get_run_summary that also expose run information. The reader is left to infer that this is the entry-point listing tool.

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