list_runs

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states it lists runs and explains two filters. It omits details on pagination, ordering, default behavior (e.g., all projects if project_id not set), or any side effects.

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?

Two sentences plus a bullet list. Front-loaded with purpose, concise, every sentence adds value. No waste.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no required, no enums, low complexity. Description gives purpose and two filter specifics but omits explanation of limit and project_id. No mention of default behavior or pagination. Incomplete for a listing tool.

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 adds meaning for suite_id and is_completed, explaining their values. However, it does not explain limit or project_id, which are also important. Thus, it partially compensates.

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 'List test runs in a project.' which is a specific verb+resource. It also explains two filters, adding context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_run or get_results_for_run, but the name and filter info help.

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 vs alternatives. It implies usage through filters but does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for single run retrieval) or any prerequisites.

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