v9_list_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the app/installation prerequisite, the licence-tier requirement, the newest-first ordering, the exact status vocabulary (running/done/error), and that an empty list is returned when the scanner is absent.

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?

Front-loaded and organized around purpose/usage/return fields, but the prerequisite is stated redundantly three times (desktop app required, runs inside the app, install/open/activate) and the licence requirement appears twice, once mid-description and again in the closing sentence.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return shape on its own and does so (run_id, status enum, verdict/n_configs/pbo_cscv/auc/best_config summary). Preconditions, alternatives, and empty-result behavior are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs before calling.

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?

Only one optional parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'limit' fully. The description's 'newest first' restates the schema's own wording rather than adding ordering semantics or interaction with the limit value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the runs of the separate batch strategy scanner') with the run-folder naming convention (V9_*/V95_*) and the per-run fields returned. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from backtest_status (graph-started runs) and positions itself as the feeder for v9_get_run and v9_tail_log.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Use it to find a run_id for v9_get_run or v9_tail_log'), when-not ('Runs started from a graph are not listed here: use backtest_status'), and the environmental preconditions (desktop app installed, scanner present, Stochastly open with an Atelier or Portfolio licence).

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