list_simulation_runs

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden yet only discloses sort order. It says nothing about pagination beyond the implicit limit, whether results are scoped to a workspace, permission requirements, or whether a truncated list is silently capped.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words and the ordering fact placed prominently. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity reads more as under-specification than deliberate concision.

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?

For a filterable list tool with three parameters, one-third schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without enough to call it confidently — especially for the undocumented status and targetId filters. It should at minimum explain what the filters select.

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 only 33% — limit is documented in the schema, but status (an enum with no stated meaning) and targetId (a UUID with no stated referent) are undocumented. The description adds no meaning to any of the three parameters, leaving a real compensation 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 states a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('simulation runs') plus an ordering guarantee ('newest first'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. However, it never distinguishes this tool from close siblings like list_simulations or get_simulation_run, so there is no explicit sibling differentiation.

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, no mention of alternatives (e.g. use get_simulation_run for a single run, list_simulations for the definitions), and no indication of when the status/targetId filters should be applied. Usage can only be inferred from the verb.

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