list_runs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns runs with specific fields (iterations, sessions, cost, flagged-call counts, status) and mentions possible statuses. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe ordering, pagination behavior, or data freshness. The behavioral context is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action ('List loop runs'). It includes necessary detail (explicit vs auto-inferred, example, returned fields) without excessive verbiage. The parenthetical adds context but could be slightly more streamlined. Overall, it is concise and well-structured.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description explains the returned fields (iterations, sessions, cost, flagged-call counts, status) but does not specify the return structure (e.g., array of objects), pagination details (how 'limit' interacts with results, whether there is a next page), or how to interpret 'auto-inferred' runs. It is moderately complete but leaves gaps for an agent to infer.

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 coverage is 100% (the 'limit' parameter is fully described in the schema). The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides. It does not mention the parameter at all, so the parameter semantics rely entirely on the schema, which is sufficient for a basic optional parameter.

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 identifies the tool as listing loop runs, specifying the resource ('loop runs') and the action ('List'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_sessions' by focusing on runs and including run-specific details (iterations, sessions, cost, flagged-call counts, status). The parenthetical notes explicit vs auto-inferred runs, further clarifying scope.

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 context on when to use the tool (explicit run ID or auto-inferred fresh-context loops) and an example ('Ralph overnight runs'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, such as 'get_run_status' for detailed status of a single run. The usage context is clear but lacks exclusion guidance.

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