optimization.list_runs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: newest-first ordering, default page size of 20, an enforced administrator maximum, and next_cursor pagination. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe permission requirements, so some transparency gaps remain.

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 short, front-loaded, and every sentence adds useful information about filtering, ordering, or pagination. There is no redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 values need not be explained, and the description covers the important operational context of ordering and cursor pagination. It remains silent on permissions or side-effect guarantees, which is more important because no annotations are provided.

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 identifies the purpose of all four parameters (limit as page size, cursor for next page, status and problem_name as filters) and mentions the default page size, but it omits allowed status values, the actual maximum limit, and problem_name format details.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list run history, with newest-first ordering and optional status/problem filters. It is clearly separable from mutation-oriented siblings like solve and cancel, though it does not explicitly name an alternative 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?

Usage is implied: inspect run history, optionally filter by status or problem, and paginate with cursor. It gives no explicit when-to-use versus get_result, list_evaluators, or compare_results, and no when-not guidance.

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