list_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: the 30-result cap and the staleness caveat after a hard crash. However, it says nothing about ordering, pagination past 30, or how stale records should be treated.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the caveat appended. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be described, and for a zero-parameter list tool the description covers the essentials: what is listed, the cap, and the staleness caveat. It stops short of explaining ordering or whether results beyond 30 can be retrieved, which leaves a small gap for an agent deciding how to consume the output.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The 100% schema coverage is trivially satisfied.

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 ... local runs') and quantifies the scope ('up to 30'). It contrasts implicitly with list_cases (cases vs runs) but never addresses get_run or run_demo, so the sibling distinction is only half-established.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the alternatives (get_run for a single run, list_cases for cases). The agent must infer that this is the enumeration tool from the verb alone.

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