list_executions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. The description implies read-only operation (listing runs) without stating non-destructiveness explicitly. It does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects, but the read-only nature is reasonably inferred.

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 with three short sections. It front-loads the purpose, adds usage context, and lists parameter details without superfluous text. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for Args) to improve readability.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, usage, and parameters adequately for an agent to use the tool correctly. Minor gap: no mention of sorting or time range, but 'recent runs' implies recency.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'agent_id: The agent's UUID' and 'limit: Number of runs to return (default 10, max 50).' This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only provides titles and types.

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 explicitly states 'List recent runs for an agent with their status and duration.' It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (runs), and differentiates from sibling list tools like list_agents and list_orchestrations by focusing on agent executions.

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 clear context: 'Useful for reviewing run history or checking whether a previous run succeeded before starting a new one.' It explains when to use the tool but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though sibling names imply the distinctions.

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