live_list_scenario_runs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of conveying behavior. It explicitly states 'Safe to poll repeatedly,' indicating read-only and non-destructive operation. It also describes the output structure and the scope (connected side panel). It does not mention any side effects or error conditions, but the information given is sufficient for typical usage.

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 concise yet information-dense, covering purpose, output structure, limitations, and usage guidance in two sentences. It is well-structured, with key details front-loaded and a clear pointer to a more detailed tool. There is no redundancy or extraneous content.

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 listing tool, the description is complete: it specifies what is listed, the categorization (current vs history), the cap of 30, and the summary fields included. It also explains when an additional tool (live_get_scenario_run) is needed for full detail. Since there is no output schema, the description's outline of the return structure is adequate.

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?

Both parameters are thoroughly described. The 'project' parameter explains its purpose and default behavior (falls back to EASYSPEC_PROJECT). The 'session' parameter clarifies when it's needed (only when multiple panels are connected) and points to live_status for context. This goes beyond the schema descriptions and adds meaningful semantic guidance.

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 clearly states the tool's function: listing scenario runs on the connected side panel, distinguishing between current and history runs. It also specifies the output fields (id, name, scenarioId, tabId, status, flows) and explicitly points to live_get_scenario_run for full detail, which differentiates it from related tools.

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 gives practical usage guidance: it notes the tool is safe to poll repeatedly, explains the difference between current and history entries, and mentions the 30-item cap. It also directs users to live_get_scenario_run for detailed information. However, it doesn't explicitly state conditions for choosing this tool over other listing tools like live_list_runs, though the context makes it reasonably clear.

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