claude_list_runs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals ordering (newest-first, active at top), source (in-memory store), bound (Settings.max_runs), and cross-restart persistence. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'list' strongly implies that, and 'recent' is not precisely defined—minor gaps.

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?

Three sentences, all informative: the scope, the ordering/source/bound detail, and the recovery use case. The text is front-loaded and wastes no words; every sentence 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?

The description covers the main behavior, ordering, bound, and recovery workflow, and an output schema exists so return-value detail is unnecessary. It is incomplete only in omitting the optional limit parameter and not explicitly confirming that this is a read-only operation—minor for a tool that works fine with no arguments.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the req.limit parameter, but it never mentions it. The only bound referenced is Settings.max_runs, which is a different limit. An agent reading the description would have no idea that an optional limit parameter with default 50 exists, especially since the schema itself provides no description.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource ('List recent runs') and immediately scopes it to active plus recently completed. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by referencing claude_start_task, claude_poll_task, and claude_cancel_task for different roles, and specifies the returned ClaudeRunSummary entries with ordering.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Use this for recovery after orchestrator restart.' It goes further to explain that active async runs survive restarts and can be polled/cancelled via claude_poll_task and claude_cancel_task, guiding the complete workflow. No alternative list tool exists among siblings, so no exclusion is required.

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