inforcer_reports_runs_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that with 'Read-only.' It adds a meaningful scope qualifier ('queued and completed') but does not describe output format, pagination, or any other behavioral detail. The description does not contradict the 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?

The description is one short sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. Every word earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema content or irrelevant detail.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides sufficient context: what is listed and that it is read-only. No output schema exists, and no additional details are necessary for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden on the description. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies because the description cannot be expected to add parameter-level meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('queued and completed report runs'), and the 'Read-only' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like run, run_status, and download_output. Even though it doesn't name the siblings, the action and scope are unambiguous.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: to enumerate queued or completed report runs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, but the simple list-oriented purpose and 'Read-only' hint make the primary usage context reasonably clear from the sibling names.

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