list_runs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It communicates that the operation is a read-only listing and provides order ('newest first') and scope ('recent') behavior, but it does not disclose pagination, default limit behavior, or whether all run statuses are included. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

Eight-word sentence with a strong front-loaded verb and no filler. 'Recent' and 'newest first' add meaning without redundancy; every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), so the core purpose and order are present. However, there is no annotation coverage, no guidance on the 'recent' window or default limit, and no sibling differentiation, leaving an agent to infer several invocation details.

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% and the description never mentions the single 'limit' parameter. The property name and min/max constraints give basic semantics, but no prose explains how the limit is applied (e.g., number of runs returned or default when omitted), so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 names the operation ('List') and the resource ('orchestrated runs') and adds a sort order. This is specific enough to distinguish from get_run (single run) and run_workflow/follow_up (run creation/continuation), so it is not a bare restatement.

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 does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_run, nor what to do if a specific run or a filtered set is needed. The intended use (viewing recent orchestrated runs) is only implied by the phrasing, and no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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