list_job_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 behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists runs but doesn't describe key behaviors such as pagination, sorting, filtering (e.g., by status or date), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates beyond its basic purpose.

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 and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by a brief parameter explanation. It avoids unnecessary words and is front-loaded with the main action. However, the 'Args:' section is slightly redundant since the parameter is already implied, and more critical details (like behavioral traits) are omitted, preventing a perfect score.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which likely describes return values), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and error handling information. This makes it adequate for simple use cases but insufficient for robust agent operation.

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 description adds minimal semantic context beyond the input schema. It explains that 'job_id' is 'The ID of the job to list runs for,' which clarifies the parameter's role but doesn't provide format details, validation rules, or examples. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is adequate but not informative, meeting the baseline for such a simple case.

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 action ('Lists runs') and the target resource ('for a specific job'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_job' or 'trigger_run' by focusing on retrieval rather than creation or execution. However, it doesn't specify the scope (e.g., all runs, recent runs, or filtered runs), which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing job ID), exclusions, or comparisons with other tools like 'trigger_run' for initiating runs. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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