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. It does disclose that signal-mcp is not configured and that calling the tool reveals the reason. However, it doesn't explain what the call returns or whether any actual list_runs functionality is present.

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 two short sentences with no filler, and the important status is front-loaded. 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 tool named list_runs with no output schema, the description fails to explain what a successful invocation would look like or what to do instead. It only instructs the agent to call it to see why, leaving the actual result and any alternative workflow unspecified.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so no parameter-level explanation is needed. The description's lack of parameter detail is not a 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 never states that list_runs lists runs or what the tool actually does; it only reports an unavailability status. This is effectively an error message rather than a functional tool definition, leaving an agent to infer the real purpose from the name.

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 only guidance is 'Call it to see why,' which tells an agent to invoke the tool to discover the reason for the unavailability. It does not specify when to choose this tool over siblings such as list_checks or get_run_status, and offers no exclusions or alternatives.

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