trace_list_runs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' clearly implies a non-destructive read operation, so the safety profile is inferable. However, the description doesn't disclose what 'recent' means (time window), the default ordering, or pagination behavior — details an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The verb and resource appear first, followed by the key data points returned. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and a provided output schema (which covers the return format), the description is reasonably complete. The main gaps are behavioral: no definition of the 'recent' window, no ordering semantics, and no explanation of how limit interacts with the result set. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and the description never mentions the sole parameter 'limit'. While 'limit' is somewhat self-explanatory from its name and default of 20, the description must compensate at this low coverage level and adds nothing about how the limit constrains results (e.g., most recent N, or first N in chronological order).

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 recent agent runs') and enumerates the returned data ('span counts, errors, and token totals'). This clearly distinguishes it from specialized siblings like trace_failed_tools, trace_token_cost, and trace_slowest_tools. It doesn't explicitly contrast with trace_get_run, but the general listing role is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus its six siblings. The description never mentions alternatives or conditions (e.g., 'for a single run's details, use trace_get_run' or 'for cost breakdowns, use trace_token_cost'). Given the large sibling set, this is a significant gap in routing an agent to the right tool.

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