list_runs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing behavioral: no statement that this is read-only, no definition of 'recent', no ordering, pagination, or auth context. Only the implicit read-only nature of 'List' and the field list are offered.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the workflow hint. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the trace_id workflow hint is useful. But for a tool with zero annotations and an undocumented limit parameter, the description leaves too much undefined (recency window, result count control) to be considered complete.

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 single parameter (limit) has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what limit does, its default, or maximum. The field list describes outputs, not parameters, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (recent agent runs) and enumerates the fields the agent will see (task, model, duration, tool use, human decisions, cost). It is clear against generic siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like recent_activity or run_summary.

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?

'Use first to find the trace_id for deeper inspection' gives a concrete workflow position and a reason to pick this tool over the deeper-inspection siblings. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are given, so it falls short of a 5.

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