list-runs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns recent runs with key fields and implies ordering by startTime. It could be more explicit about sorting and pagination, but it is adequate for the intended health-probe 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides a concrete use case. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, the description covers purpose, usage, and provides a health-probe scenario. It omits details about output structure or error handling, but the lack of an output schema means some burden remains. Still, it is reasonably complete for the task.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline for high coverage. No extra context for 'top', 'flow', or 'environment'.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'recent runs of a flow', specifying the fields (status, start/end time, error). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get-run' (single run) and 'list-flows' (lists flows).

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 explicitly positions the tool as a health probe with a specific scenario (latest Failed run or stale newest startTime indicates a dead flow). While it does not explicitly list alternatives, the use case is clear and actionable.

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