Останні запуски

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 behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'list' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention pagination, limit semantics, response format, or any side effects. The description is too sparse to convey behavior beyond the obvious.

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 concise in length but under-specified. It consists of a single short sentence that provides minimal information. There is no front-loading of key details, and it lacks any structure to aid comprehension. The brevity is not a strength here because it omits essential context.

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 has no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented parameter, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine what the response looks like, how 'limit' behaves, or any error conditions. The description fails to provide the necessary context for correct invocation.

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 one parameter, 'limit', with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not mention this parameter at all. An agent cannot infer the meaning or usage of 'limit' from the description, making the parameter semantics completely unexplained.

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: 'Перелік запусків' means 'List of runs', and it specifies ordering with 'найновіші згори' (newest at top). This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like glm_run (which executes a run) and glm_status (which shows status). The purpose 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. The only implicit cue is that it lists runs, but there is no explicit direction or comparison to sibling tools.

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