list_simulation_runs

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it specifies pagination behavior ('Results are paginated'), default usage ('Use the maximum perPage by default'), and what the 'include' parameter does (including related entities like events). This enhances the agent's understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with clear sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's function, providing usage tips, and explaining the 'include' parameter. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating some tips into the parameter explanations.

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 complexity (6 parameters, pagination, filtering), the description is reasonably complete. It covers key behavioral aspects like pagination and default usage, and with annotations indicating read-only operation and no output schema, it doesn't need to explain return values. However, it could benefit from more explicit guidance on when to use versus sibling 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds some semantic context, such as recommending default values for 'perPage' and explaining how 'after' works with pagination, but doesn't provide significant additional meaning beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 purpose: 'list simulation runs in Paddle.' It specifies the resource (simulation runs) and verb (list), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_simulation_run_events' or 'get_simulation_run' beyond the resource name. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 implied usage guidance through parameter explanations (e.g., 'use the maximum perPage by default,' 'use the 'after' parameter... to get the next page'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_simulation_run' for single runs or 'list_simulation_run_events' for events. It offers practical tips but no direct comparative context.

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