tods_get_runs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully declares the returned content (chronological duty events, report/clear times, work pieces, total duty duration), which substitutes for an absent output schema, but it omits read-only/mutating status and any behavior on missing runs or malformed feeds.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the data source is front-loaded and the return payload follows immediately. Nothing is wasted.

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 4-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return shape well but never mentions the filtering capability that the three optional parameters imply, leaving a gap an agent would need to discover from the schema.

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 100%, so all four parameters (including the three optional filters) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about filter semantics or combinations, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (queries) and resource (operational crew runs from run_events.txt), and enumerates what is returned (duty events, report/clear times, pieces of work, duty duration). This is clearly separable from siblings like tods_get_deadheads or tods_get_vehicle_assignments.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over tods_get_deadheads or tods_get_vehicle_assignments, nor any prerequisites beyond the implicit need for a feed. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and data source mention.

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