asset_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 burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose ordering ('newest first') and filtering behavior for the 'program' parameter. However, it does not describe the return format, whether it is read-only, or any other side effects. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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: one purpose sentence plus two parameter explanations. It front-loads the main action and provides necessary parameter details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and parameters. However, it lacks details about what fields are returned per run, which would be helpful for an agent deciding whether to use this tool vs alternatives. The absence of any return value description is a notable gap, especially with no output schema.

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. It explains both parameters: 'program' (filter by program name, empty = all) and 'limit' (max results). This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's type/default information. The 'limit' explanation is minimal but sufficient; the 'program' explanation clarifies the empty default behavior.

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's function: 'List recorded scan runs (recon cycles), newest first.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recorded scan runs'), and adds ordering detail ('newest first'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like asset_diff_runs or asset_latest_changes, which focus on comparing or showing changes rather than simple listing.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to retrieve scan runs. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the straightforward listing purpose is evident. Since no output schema or further guidance is given, a perfect score is not warranted, but the clarity of the context earns a 4.

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