List runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' is somewhat redundant but consistent. Beyond that, the description adds real domain semantics: 'interrupted' means a direct run lost its execution lease, and a running host batch may be awaiting the agent with no lease between calls. That is non-obvious state meaning an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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?

Dense and front-loaded — the read-only marker and returned-field list come first, then the resume routing, then the status semantics. Every sentence carries information, though the two status-semantics sentences are tightly packed and could be slightly more scannable.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the returned columns and the sort order, and it explains the trickiest status value. It stops short of defining 'counts' or the other enum states, but for a read-only listing tool this is close to complete.

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% across 3 parameters, so the description carries the burden and only partially compensates: it explains the 'driver (direct or host)' and 'workflow' concepts and the meaning of the 'interrupted' enum value, but says nothing about limit, ordering defaults, or what paused/done/partial/stopped mean.

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 clear verb and resource ('List runs') and immediately enumerates the returned fields (runId, workflow, driver, status, counts, start/end times) plus ordering ('newest first'). It differentiates itself from the run_* siblings by explaining the direct-vs-host driver distinction, though it never contrasts itself with the other list-style tool workflow_list.

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?

It routes the agent to run_resume for direct runs and host_next for host runs, which is genuinely useful follow-up guidance, but it never says when to call run_list itself or when to filter by status/workflow rather than listing everything. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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