runrunit_list_subtasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Listing' reasonably implies a read-only operation and makes the target resource clear, but the description does not address output shape, pagination, error cases, or any side effects. This is acceptable for a simple list tool 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?

The description is a single, direct sentence that leads with the intended action and names the object. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description plus the schema provide enough information to invoke the tool correctly. It could be more complete by explicitly stating the read-only nature or the response format, but nothing essential is missing for basic use.

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 only parameter, task_id, is fully covered by the schema with the description 'Parent task ID'. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail, so the schema already handles the burden; a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('listing'), a concrete resource ('subtasks of a task'), and the platform ('Runrun.it'). It directly matches the tool name without merely repeating it and clearly differentiates it from siblings like runrunit_list_tasks and runrunit_list_task_comments.

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 phrase 'Use for listing subtasks of a task' establishes the intended scenario, which is helpful but generic. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions for choosing this tool over a sibling, so an agent gets adequate but not explicit guidance.

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